Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Gershon Process

Nadine Dorries: What recent representations he has received on the implementation of the Gershon process.

Gordon Brown: Reductions in posts so far have been 40,000 gross and 33,000 net, as we achieve the Gershon purpose of releasing resources for front-line services. To further this aim, we have today, while accepting the recommendations of the pay review bodies, staged the awards for judges and seniorcivil servants—including Ministers, MPs and consultants—with an initial award of just 1 per cent. from l April. Nurses will receive 2.5 per cent. immediately and, granting them with progression awards, average rises of 5.2 per cent., as we match anti-inflation discipline with fairness. Average rises in the public sector pay awards will be 2.25 per cent.

Nadine Dorries: I thank the Minister for his reply. I wonder whether he saw the damning "Panorama" programme on Sunday night called "The NHS blame game". I wonder whether Gershon is to blame for hospitals closing, wards closing and thousands of nurses losing their jobs.

Gordon Brown: As a former nurse—I welcome her to the House—the hon. Lady should know that there are 79,000 more nurses in the national health service. There are 27,000 more doctors in the national health service. Even in the last year, as deficits have been adjusted, there have been thousands more people working in the national health service. That is the why there are a quarter of a million more operations taking place in the health service now than there were under the Conservatives.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on the great success that he is already having in increasing front-line services in the national health service? Will he have a look to see whether it is possible, as part of or in addition to the Gershon review of non front-line services, to introduce a policy of natural wastage, which is probably the fairest way? Those who, for one reason or another, leave the service could be replaced by recruitment from within, promotion from within or redeployment from within.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the Department for Work and Pensions, some redeployment has been taking place already to new front-line services such as helping single parents into work and helping with our incapacity benefit reforms, and we will continue to do that. In addition, I announced last week in the Budget that there would be zero settlements for the Home Office between 2008 and 2011 and minus 5 per cent. settlements for the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. So we will continue to release resources by administrative savings for front-line services. The difference between ourselves and our opponents is that we will release resources to improve front-line services whereas they simply want to cut public services.

Vincent Cable: How does the Chancellor reconcile his proposal to make 5 per cent. real annual cuts in the Inland Revenue and the DWP, which is much more than Gershon thought prudent, with his overall strategy of trying to deal with poverty by extending mass means-testing, which relies much more on those Departments? Is there not a lack of joined-up thinking here?

Gordon Brown: May I first welcome the Liberal Democrats shadow Chancellor to his new job as deputy leader of his party. He has come a long way since we jointly worked on Labour party tracts in the 1970s. The last shadow chancellor to become deputy leader of the party was Roy Jenkins, and he walked out of both jobs within a few months. At least he went to better paid jobs as a result.
	On the issue of poverty, last Wednesday in the Budget I showed that if we could combine the rise in the child tax credit with getting more single parents back into work we could take 300,000 more children out of poverty. I just hope that the Liberal party will reconsider its position on these issues. The single most important factor—Opposition Members should recognise this—in taking children out of poverty in the past few years has been the introduction of the child tax credit and helping single parents and others into work. That has taken 700,000 children out of poverty. The measures that I announced last week will take another 300,000 people out of poverty. No party in the House has produced an alternative plan to take so many people out of poverty. More children have been taken out of poverty in the past few years than in any period for 40 years.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the increased pay for nurses. That will make a great deal of difference. It will make a great deal of difference to nurses working in my constituency. Does the Chancellor agree that it is in the spirit of the Gershon review that we move resources from back-line to front-line services?

Gordon Brown: That is absolutely what we are trying to achieve. We want to move resources from back-office services by means of technological change to the front-line caring services, especially in the NHS. My hon. Friend will notice that the average salary for a nurse is going up today from £27,000 to over £28,400. That is to recruit more nurses into the national health service. I would have thought that, as a former nurse, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) would welcome what we are doing today. It represents both fairness to nurses and achieving anti-inflation discipline in the economy.

Theresa Villiers: Several hon. Gentlemen wrongly claimed that I was banned from the Budget debate, but on Tuesday night I suspect that the real Chief Secretary wished that he had been banned from it.
	The Chancellor has always claimed that the Gershon review would produce efficiency savings without having an impact on quality of service. Does he agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions who said of the impact of Gershon on Jobcentre Plus:
	"In their drive for efficiency, the Government has caused a serious failure in customer service, staffing, procurement and IT. The Secretary of State himself described the Agency as being faced with a 'shed load of difficulties' and the Committee agrees."?
	Are not the Government failing some of the most vulnerable people in Britain by presiding over what the Select Committee described as "truly appalling service levels" at Jobcentre Plus?

Gordon Brown: I would think more of the Conservatives' position if they were not in favour of cuts in basic services in the first place. If the hon. Lady really wants to look at evidence, why does she not look at the National Audit Office report? Mr. Keith Davis of the NAO said:
	"Our view is that this Gershon programme is more serious and more systematic than previous attempts to achieve efficiency in Government."
	The report noted that there were many examples of good progress and listed all of them. If people want an overall view of the effect of Gershon, which has brought 40,000 post reductions, they should look at the NAO report and what it says in support of what the Government are doing.

Stephen Hesford: A nurse who came to see me over the weekend told me that because we are investing in front-line services, particularly nurses, she is looking forward to an increased career as a nurse practitioner or a nurse consultant. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, far from damaging front-line services, that is an example of resources being moved from the back office to front-line services?

Gordon Brown: Surely, the challenge is to make the savings that we are talking about and then to improve front-line services. The difference between ourselves and the Opposition is that the shadow Chancellor committed himself, on GMTV only a few days ago, to cut the share of national income taken by the state—a £17 billion cuts programme this year, with £16 billion next year. That can only damage basic services in the economy.

Tax Burdens

Robert Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of the average tax burden on a family.

Dawn Primarolo: The tax for a single-earner family with two children on male mean earnings of £31,600 a year will be 20.4 per cent. ofgross family earnings in 2006–07, which is 0.8 percentage points lower than in 1997–98. For the same family on median earnings of £24,000 a year, tax will be 14.2 per cent., which is a 3.4 percentage points lower than in 1997–98.

Robert Wilson: According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain pays more tax than Germany and our tax burden is growing almost 30 times faster than that of France. Does the Minister agree with the chief economic adviser to Ernst and Young who has warned that the high level of taxation now threatens the stability of the UK economy?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his assertion. The recently published OECD report on family income demonstrates that the UK is below the European average and below levels in Germany. As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, the child benefit and child tax changes mean in effect that income tax liability on a family with two children, with earnings of up to £425 a week, is wiped out. That means 3 million families in Britain with no income tax liability.

John McFall: May I refer the Paymaster General to the OECD report, which indicates that income tax as a percentage of labour costs for people on 67 per cent. of average earnings in the UK is 8 per cent. below the EU 15 countries and 4 per cent. below the average for OECD countries? Does not that indicate that progress has been made on our poverty targets? We need to engage in a national debate on tax to ensure both economic growth and social justice in this country.

Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He quotes from the correct OECD study, as I would expect him to do, and it demonstrates that the cuts in tax undertaken by the Government—the 10p rate and the 22p rate—the increases in child benefit and the tax credits not only ensure that we can give the most resources to those who are least well off, but that we are lifting children out of poverty: precisely the points that my right hon. Friend makes.

Michael Fallon: Table 2 of the OECD report this morning shows that the tax on a married couple with two children has been cut over the past five years in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and the United States, whereas it has risen in the United Kingdom. When will Ministers wake up to the damage that they are doing to our economy?

Dawn Primarolo: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments, because he is very well-informed on these things, and he knows that the tax wedge—the calculation that the OECD uses for those figures—also takes into account the contribution of employers in working them out. He will also know, because he has been a Member for a long time, that this Government introduced the 10p rate, that this Government reduced the tax rate to 22 per cent., that this Government increased child benefit when the Government of whom he was a member froze it and that this Government introduced tax credits in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party.

Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. Friend not listen to the siren voices of Opposition Members or fall for their interpretation of the tax burden and recognise, as I think that she has, that tax has an important role to play in ending child poverty? How does she think that the Government can redouble their crusade against child poverty, which has already taken 700,000 children out of the poverty that the Conservative party left them in when it left office, so that we can reach the target to halve it by 2010?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend acknowledges, the number of children in absolute poverty has been halved by the Government: 1.8 million children and low-income families have been lifted out of poverty since 1996–97. She will also have noted the comments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in his Budget speech about the importance of the commitment to tax credits and child benefit rises in continuing to challenge the level of child poverty in this country and to raise children out of poverty. That is the only suggestion on the table. Despite the fact that Opposition Members constantly complain, they make no positive suggestion on how to improve the situation and raise more children out of poverty.

Peter Tapsell: Now that the Chancellor has had it explained to him from afar that he will be expected to introduce at least another two Budgets, will the right hon. Lady try to persuade him to apply his mind to the reduction of the vast overall increase in taxation that he has imposed on the people of this country?

Dawn Primarolo: It does not matter how many times Opposition Members try to assert that view, the fact is that the Government have been reducing tax—[Interruption]—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budgets, directed specifically at families, ensure that that happens. I look forward to continuing, if I can, to contribute to Budgets that take forward those principles.

Sally Keeble: Further to the question on table 2, does my right hon. Friend agree that the table shows that, over the past five years, the tax burden has gone up by 0.1 per cent. to 27.1 per cent., which is still below that of Germany at 35.7 per cent. and France at 41.7 per cent.? Will she continue with the policies of holding down tax for families and ensuring good quality public services for my constituents?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend knows that this Government reduced tax from 23 to 22 per cent., that this Government introduced the 10p starting rate, that this Government pay tax credits to ensure that families do not start to pay tax, in effect, until they are on a weekly income of £425 if they have two children and that only this Government will use those policies to ensure that families get the very best, both from public services and from jobs and incomes.

Mark Hoban: In Question Time yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister talked about looking at tax changes in the round. Will the Paymaster General tell me, in the round, how much a two-pensioner household will get to compensate them this year for the loss of their £200 pre-election bribe and an average increase in council tax of £254?

Dawn Primarolo: Those on pension credit will continue to see rises this year in line with the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. They will continue to receive the heating allowance, as he identified, and they will continue to be the beneficiaries of the massive increases that the Government have put into local government to ensure that council tax rises are minimised.

Fuel Duty

David Chaytor: What the total revenue from fuel duty has been since 1996.

Gordon Brown: The answer is £215 billion. In the Budget, I froze duty until at least 1 September. I also announced a renewable transport fuel obligation with a higher 35p differential for biofuels; an environmentally based payment system for vehicle excise duty, ranging from zero to £210; and progress on introducing sulphur-free diesel.

David Chaytor: In spite of the revenue from fuel duty, which is a very large amount, is it not the case that the cost of private motoring continues to decline year on year? Is it not also the case that, in the light of the climate change review programme published this week, sooner or later all parties in the House are going to face up to the fact that an above-inflation rise in fuel duty is the most effective means of reducing congestion, and of reducing CO 2 emissions in the transport sector?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend takes a big interest in environmental issues and I appreciate what he has said on many occasions over the years about the progress that we have made in our environmental policy, but I have to say that the doubling of oil prices—indeed, in many ways, the trebling of oil prices—over the past three years has created a new situation for both motorists and the freight industry in this country. We have got to balance the needs of the economy with meeting our environmental objectives. I hope that he understands that, at a time when oil prices have doubled, we have got to take that into account in setting fuel duties.

Public Sector Bodies (Debt)

Brian Binley: What recent assessment he has made of the transparency of the classification of public sector bodies' debt.

Des Browne: The classification of a given body and its assets and liabilities as public or private sector is a matter for the Office for National Statistics, acting in its capacity asan independent statistical agency and using international guidelines. Further, the UK Government are one of the few Governments in the world who have a statutory obligation to report liabilities in the same way as private companies and whose accounts are subject to independent audit.

Brian Binley: I had hoped that the Chancellor would answer the question, but will the Minister be very kind and tell the House what benefits the taxpayer gets from not knowing how much public money is currently off balance sheet thanks to PFI?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that off-balance-sheet accounting is assessed in circumstances in which the assets belong to the private sector and so the debt that is financed is a liability of the private and not the public sector. Consequently, it is not appropriate to consider it as a debt for the purposes of the sustainable investment rule, but that does not mean that those assets are not used to the advantage of the delivery of public services. In every single constituency up and down our country, there are the advantages of PFI investment in delivering public services.

Edward Balls: Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity to examine proposals to move PFI and contingent liabilities, breaking with best international practice and the practice of past Governments of all parties in this country, on to the Budget—[Hon. Members: "Balance Sheet."]—and the balance sheet? What impact does he think that that would have on the prospect for public investment in our country?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to identity that particular area. The Opposition argue that such movement on to the balance sheet would put the country in a position in which it could not meet the sustainable investment rule and thus could not invest further in public services and our infrastructure. That would be the effect of us not being able to treat those accounts in such a way.

Mark Francois: In a Committee prior to Christmas, I pressed the Economic Secretary to reveal the Government's estimate of the proportion of gross domestic product represented by their off-balance-sheet debt. He said that he would write to me, but I am still waiting for the letter. I pressed him again in a debate on 7 March, but I have still not had an answer, and we have not had an answer today. Is not the real reason why the Government will not reveal the estimate that they know full well that it would fatally undermine their sustainable investment rule if they were to do so?

Des Browne: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has had his answer, but clearly he does not accept it. As he knows, it is for the Office for National Statistics to compile the number for the purpose of the public sector finances, not Her Majesty's Treasury. That is its job and that is why that is done independently.

Hugh Bayley: Since the Labour Government came to power we have had record investment in schools and the health service. PFI is building four new primary schools in York, we have just got approval through conventional finance for rebuilding the first secondary school in York for 40 years and we have had £30 million of new investment in our hospital. Does the Chief Secretary remember the days when the Conservatives supported the private finance initiative, and will he give a commitment that the levels of investment that we have had from the Labour Government in schools and hospitals will continue for as long as we are in power?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right. There was £600 million of investment in schools when the Conservatives were in power, but there is now investment of £6 billion. The reason why they no longer support such investment in the public services is that they affirm to the third fiscal rule, which would require them to strip it out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must apologise to the House for, in the absence of Mr. Afriyie, getting the sequence wrong. I hope that I may have the co-operation of Ministers and hon. Members, in particular, to ensure that we at least get to Question 10.

Economic Growth

Michael Fabricant: What assessment he has made of the correlation between overall tax levels and economic growth; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: The Government's macro-economic framework has consistently delivered stability with strong growth and low inflation, thus establishing a track record that has been internationally acknowledged. Gross domestic product has now grown for 54 consecutive quarters and inflation remains at historically low rates. The Government's approach to taxation balances the need to finance better quality public services, deliver fairness and promote sustainable development, while ensuring that the UK benefits from the advantages of being a lightly taxed economy.

Michael Fabricant: A few moments ago, the Paymaster General said that tax had fallen under this Labour Government. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the total tax receipts have increased from 37 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97 to 39.3 per cent. now. Who was right and who was wrong?

Des Browne: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General was, of course, talking about tax rates. These comparisons are extremely interesting, so if the House wants comparisons on the tax burden, let us have some. The tax burden is actually lower now than it was during the entire period between 1981 and 1988, under Margaret Thatcher, and well below the peak tax burden in 1984. According to the experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the net tax burden on the average working family in the UK today is half what it was when we came to power. Of course, the amount of tax collected rises fastest when the economy is doing well. For example, the lowest tax burden of the past 30 years was in 1993–94, when the economy was barely growing, unemployment was above 3 million, millions of families faced negative equity and wage settlements were at a 25-year low.

Kelvin Hopkins: Tax levels in Denmark, Sweden and Finland are substantially higher than in Britain. Public spending in those countries is substantially higher than in Britain. The quality of public services in those countries is very high and the levels of poverty are low. Their levels of economic growth are higher now than before. Will my hon. Friend reject the nonsense that is spoken by Opposition Members?

Des Browne: I am happy to reject the nonsense that is spoken. I am happy also to point out to my hon. Friend that we have doubled investment in health and in education while at the same time holding down tax rates. The key to continued investment in our infrastructure and the support of services, while holding down tax rates, is to increase employment. There are 2.3 million more people in the tax system, potentially paying tax, than there were when we came to power in 1997.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), who this week said that taxpayers had reached the limit of what they could pay for public services? I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is helping the Chief Secretary, so I will carry on a little longer until the message has got through.

Des Browne: My understanding from my colleague, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, is that he denies that he said what is being attributed to him and that he was talking about adult learning grants. He is a member and a supporter of a Government who have cut tax rates, increased investment and increased employment.

Judy Mallaber: As we have indeed had a remarkable period of growth year on year for 10 years, will my hon. Friend assure me that he will invest the proceeds of that growth in education in science and research so that we can continue to achieve such growth? Will he note that although we have doubled investment in education, we are still behind some of our major competitors, such as America, in terms of national income? On a recent trip to India, I saw how quickly that fast-growing economy was expanding its education service. Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth in our economy should be invested in education so that we can increase growth in future?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend has made a number of important points. She sets them in a globalised environment and sets out the challenge that we all face. I can reassure my hon. Friend and others. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he delivered the Budget statement, we shall continue in our stewardship of the economy, pre-Budget reports and Budgets, to get the balance right between investment, tax and borrowing. We will do that to ensure the continued progress and development of our economy and of social justice in the United Kingdom.

David Laws: Was the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) right to offer the Government the constructive and helpful advice and warning this week that 1 million more people than in 1998 now face marginal tax rates of more than 60 per cent.?

Des Browne: We have reduced the number of people on high marginal tax rates since we came to power. We will continue to develop our policies to respond to the challenges that face us. Our policies have delivered for the poor, and particularly for the poorest in our society, by bringing children out of poverty as well as pensioners, and the hon. Gentleman well knows that.

Jonathan R Shaw: Has my hon. Friend met Mr. Andrus Ansip recently, the Prime Minister of Estonia, where they have the flat tax? Has he considered such a flat tax and its impact on the British economy?

Des Browne: I have already expressed my view on Estonia, which I think was attractive to the shadow Chancellor at the beginning of his post. Strangely, I do not think that he has mentioned Estonia in the past few months in an analogy to the substantially more developed economy of the United Kingdom. The House knows my position on that. It is not an appropriate analogy and Estonia's position in relation to the rest of the European Union facilitates its ability to be able to run its tax system as it does.

George Osborne: Was the junior Education Minister, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning speaking for the Government when he said that people are now taxed to the limit?

Des Browne: I have already told the House that my hon. Friend did not say what is being attributed to him. He was talking about adult learning grants.

George Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with the junior Education Minister, does he agree with Sir Derek Wanless, the Chancellor's health spending guru, who said on the radio this morning that the money spent on the NHS should have been spent much better? Does he think, like Sir Derek Wanless, that the results that we have got from that money are extremely disappointing?

Des Browne: I am delighted to share with the House some of the results that we have got from that money—that unprecedented investment in the NHS, which I remind the House the hon. Gentleman and his party opposed root and branch. I will give some examples of what has been achieved: 662,000 more heart operations, compared with 1997–98; 1 million more elective admissions each year, including 35,000 more heart operations—a rise of 88 per cent.; 465,600 more cataract operations—a rise of 89 per cent.; 21,000 more hip fracture operations—a rise of 34 per cent.; and 29,600 more knee replacements—a rise of 108 per cent. I am distinctly proud of that achievement.

Private Finance Initiative

David Taylor: How much public money has been (a) committed and (b) spent under the private finance initiative since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: Since 1997, the Government have signed over 650 PFI projects, with a total capital value of £43 billion. Since 1999, the Treasury has published forecast future unitary charge payments signed under PFI projects alongside the Budget.

David Taylor: The Chancellor and his team have indeed been remarkably successful since 1997 and I look forward to early promotion for every one of them, but can the Minister explain the continuing Treasury love affair with PFI? The Budget small print hid a large sum of £26 billion—2 per cent. of gross domestic product—being ladled into 30-year projects which, if conventionally financed and run, would be lower cost and have the greater flexibility that is needed in a rapidly changing world. Would it not be prudent in a market with historically low interest rates to abandon PFI and expand public borrowing for investment?

John Healey: As my hon. Friend really knows, one cannot sensibly make such calculations because the payments on the PFI projects include the cost of catering, maintenance, cleaning—the servicing of the asset. In typical PFI projects, those costs are 40 to 50 per cent. of the unitary charge payments. In those circumstances, the PFI has been an important but modest part of the fivefold increase in the public sector net investment that we have put in place since 1997. There are hospitals, schools and transport projects around the country that could not have been put in place without the contribution of the PFI.

Susan Kramer: How many hospitals are cutting front-line staff because PFI contracts have taken away their flexibility to meet budget cuts by cutting or dealing with maintenance, cleaning or financing, as the Minister just described? Many of my constituents use the West Middlesex hospital and they are suffering because the only cuts possible are in front-line staff.

John Healey: The hon. Lady needs to understand that PFI is a form of procurement. Whatever the type of procurement, the needs locally must be assessed and established. The capacity to cover the cost of that investment, conventional or PFI, must be established. PFI contracts have mechanisms in place to vary the arrangements, should the needs locally change. In the context of the Budget, we published a document that I think the hon. Lady would welcome if she read it. It strengthens the mechanisms that allow us to put in place the contract variations that may be necessary in the future.

European Single Market

Ian Austin: If he will make a statement on progress towards the European single market.

Gordon Brown: Next week, the Treasury will publish a paper on the benefits of open markets for Europe and for a Europe that rejects protectionism. At the meeting of European Finance Ministers in Vienna, we will propose that all energy and other sectors that fail to liberalise and open up to competition in the European Union be subject to independent investigation and enforcement.

Ian Austin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incomplete liberalisation of European energy markets has been a major factor in recent high gas prices? Will he put pressure on other European countries that have failed to open up their markets, so that we can get prices down for hard-working families facing higher bills after the last, coldest months of the year?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has pointed out the direct effect of the lack of competition in European markets on consumer prices for people throughout the United Kingdom. The cost to us of not having a fully liberalised gas market is about £10 billion a year, which forces up consumer gas prices and means that pensioners and others face higher energy bills. That is why the European Union must now reject protectionism and move towards a far more open market for energy, for financial services, for telecommunications and for utilities, which is why we are now advocating a different course of action. Instead of just reaching political agreements about timetables for liberalisation, a process should be set up in Europe so that those sectors that fail to liberalise and open up to competition are subject to investigations on behalf of consumers and then to new enforcement mechanisms. That would end the practice of economic patriotism, which is against the interests of consumers right across the European Union.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the United Kingdom on the way in which it has liberalised its market. We believe in fair and free competition, and the problem lies with a number of countries within the European Union, not least Italy and France. When will the system allow immediate action to be taken against those countries that are not liberalising and that are protecting their industries, particularly in energy, to our disadvantage?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken about those issues in the past. It is completely unacceptable that British industries should play by the rules while industries in other countries do not play by the rules of the single market. It is essential that we send out a message that beggar-my-neighbour policies, protectionist policies and the restriction of competition are damaging both to the consumer and to industrial growth right across the European Union. Indeed, if we fail to get a world trade agreement, such practices will damage industrial growth right across the world, which is why we are proposing a different course of action. In the past, we have had meetings to set timetables on liberalising the energy sectors by this date, the utilities sector by that date, the telecommunications sector by another date and the services sector by a further date. Instead of simply relying on people honouring promises that have been made at such meetings, a mechanism should be implemented so that the European Union itself, perhaps through an independent competition authority separate from the European Commission, investigates sector by sector what is going on and who is restricting competition. Such an authority should have enforcement powers to deal with restrictions on competition, so that we can open up trade across the single market and influence world trade talks, where the damage that will be done by a return to protectionist policies for both developed and developing countries is something that we cannot accept.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend must be delighted by the results of the Lisbon scorecard published by the Centre for European Reform, which shows Britain as one of the best performing economies in Europe as far as those benchmarks are concerned. Is he confident, however, that the rest of our partners have learned the lessons set out in the Kok report?

Gordon Brown: Progress has been made in every country. Reforms are taking place in France, which is experiencing a reaction to them at the moment, and they have also taken place in Germany and Spain. It is true that, in particular, our employment record is one of the best in Europe on the Lisbon scorecard, and we will keep it that way. If I may say so, the reason why we have a good employment record is the combination of the policies that we have pursued for economic stability and the introduction of the new deal, which has helped people who are unemployed and who are without skills to get back into work. Even now, the Opposition should reconsider their opposition to the new deal and support a measure that has given more than 1 million people the chance of jobs in our country.

Biofuels

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on his tax policy for biofuels.

John Healey: The Government receive many representations as part of the Budget process and we consider them very seriously. The Budget included an announcement on the further extension of support in a range of ways for the development of the UK biofuels market.

Anne McIntosh: Although I am grateful for that answer, the Financial Secretary will be aware that there is disappointment that no firm commitment has been made to increase the renewable transport fuel obligation beyond 5 per cent. in 2010. Does he agree that that will be a barrier to investment that will prevent farmers from benefiting from the measure? What are the chances of the UK Government receiving Commission approval for the state aid of enhanced capital allowances, which, although it was announced in last year's pre-Budget report, has still not been given Commission clearance as state aid?

John Healey: There are at least two questions there. We are confident of the case for the enhanced capital allowance and hope to see it in place by 2007. I do not agree with the hon. Lady's initial comments. The renewable fuel transport obligation is there to give as great a long-term certainty as possible for those who must invest in future plant, particularly in Britain. I respect the arguments of bodies such as the National Farmers Union, but in the end the companies will make the investments to deliver the market and the production. The hon. Lady might like to talk to the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser), who has the first British bioethanol plant in his constituency. Another company, Losonoco, which has big bioethanol plants, said of the Budget:
	"From our perspective it was a good Budget. We were impressed by the way the process of consultation between Government and industry has taken place, the care around the analysis, the genuine interest shown in the views of industry and the support that the Government has given to the biofuels sector."

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the introduction of the mechanism for making the renewable transport fuel obligation escalator work, particularly the 15p per litre buy-ups measure and the continuation of the 20p discount on tax. Will he ensure that there is a mechanism to monitor the introduction of those processes to ensure that the necessary investment goes into the plant for producing bioethanol and biodiesel in the UK?

John Healey: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He takes as close an interest in these issues, and is a source of as many ideas on them, as anyone in this House. As part of the process of producing the regulations that will help to put the obligation in place, we will carefully consider the carbon emissions assurance scheme that will be required to ensure that we get the most benefit to the environment from the development of a British biofuels market.

Public Sector (Local Pay)

Adam Price: Whether he has discussed his proposals for local pay in the public sector with the Finance Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive.

Ivan Lewis: Treasury Ministers periodically meet Finance Ministers from the devolved Administrations to discuss a range of issues of common interest, including public sector pay. The objective of the Government's public sector pay policy is to ensure high-quality delivery of public services while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. In some cases, that may require a local pay variation to reflect differences in labour market conditions across the country. In devolved areas, it is for devolved Administrations to determine pay settlements. In some cases, they have decided to be part of the UK-wide systems.

Adam Price: In a report funded by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), the Bevan Foundation, a Labour-leaning think-tank, concluded that the introduction of local pay in the public sector would widen further the pay gap between Wales and the rest of the UK. Did the Minister's colleagues in the National Assembly make that point to him forcefully, or does the Labour party say one thing in public and another in private?

Ivan Lewis: Wales has done better than almost anywhere as a consequence of this Government's policy. In recent years, public sector workers in Wales, particularly those in the front line, have received significant, year-on-year salary increases. That is the real gap compared with the pay that they were receiving up until 1997. There are arguments for localised pay in some circumstances, but there is no room for any grievances about the rates of pay for public service workers on the front line in Wales.

Wayne David: Does the Minister agree that the strength of the Welsh economy is eloquent testimony to the effective partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government and central Government?

Ivan Lewis: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his new book, which was published recently. The combination of economic growth and public service improvements in Wales that has occurred as a consequence of the partnership between the devolved Administration and the Westminster Government means that the people of Wales are experiencing, on a daily basis, a difference in their quality of life and standard of living.

Youth Volunteering

Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on funding he has provided for youth volunteering.

Gordon Brown: Following millennium volunteering for young people, which was introduced in 1999, and the young volunteering challenge after 2000, the Government set up the Russell commission in 2004. It has recommended—and the Government have accepted—£100 million of new investment in gap years and other volunteering for young people. That is already sponsored by 26 companies and the programmes are run with the involvement of young people. The national youth community service board is independent of Government in its appointments and its allocation of money.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many young people do not get a good press? Will he join me in congratulating Action Durham Millennium Volunteers in my constituency? It comprises a group of 16 to 24-year-olds who are involved in a range of voluntary projects. Many of them have won the award for excellence for completing 200 hours of volunteering.

Gordon Brown: I congratulate the volunteers in my hon. Friend's constituency. In every constituency in the country, more young people are taking part in voluntary activities, and there is a greater demand that they do that. All the evidence from the most recent volunteering initiatives shows that, when young people are given the opportunity, they respond, not only in traditional projects for volunteering but in environmental projects, for which we announced new measures in the Budget. The importance of the volunteering initiative is that we hope to have 1 million more people volunteering as a result of the Russell commission proposals and the work of the national youth community service that has now been set up. I repeat that its board is independent of Government in its appointments and its allocation of money.

Illegal Workers

John Pugh: If he will make a statement on the role of the Inland Revenue in identifying illegally employed workers.

Dawn Primarolo: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has no formal responsibilities for dealing with or identifying illegal migrant workers. When HMRC officers come across information that suggests that an employer has committed a criminal offence by employing an illegal worker, it can be and is passed to the immigration and nationality directorate.

John Pugh: The Paymaster General will acknowledge that the failure of agencies and gangmasters to account properly for their tax affairs is often the clearest indication of the systematic use of illegal labour and, of course, it gives them a competitive advantage. Does she acknowledge that there have been cases in which the Inland Revenue's pursuit of unpaid tax has conflicted with police investigations and attempts to prosecute under proceeds of crime legislation? Will she admit that that is ripe for further investigation?

Dawn Primarolo: No. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the joint workplace enforcement pilot, which involves all the agencies, including HMRC, and the gangmasters licensing scheme, which the Gangmasters Licensing Authority operates. He will also know that HMRC co-operates fully with and has information gateways to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and he will therefore understand that I am confident that relevant information is passed to the relevant authorities.

Charitable Donations

Ian Lucas: What assessment he has made of the impact on charitable giving of the introduction of tax relief at source for charitable donations.

Ivan Lewis: In 2000, the Government greatly expanded tax relief for giving to charities. Since then, tax repaid to charities on donations using gift aid has increased from £222 million in 2000–01 to £625 million in 2004–05. Payroll giving has increased in value from £55 million in 2000–01 to £83 million in 2004–05.

Ian Lucas: I recognise the excellent progress that has been made since 1997 in the development of charitable giving. However, the development of charitable foundations and tax deduction at source in the United States means that there is a far higher level of charitable giving there than in the UK, even now. Has any long-term assessment been made of a change in the charitable giving system?

Ivan Lewis: In the Budget, the Chancellor announced the creation in the Treasury of the office of charity and third sector finance, which will focus on financial support to the sector. In addition, as part of the comprehensive spending review process, we will undertake the largest ever consultation with the third sector in this country. It will include every region of the country and consult not only the large and medium-sized charities but some of the grass-roots, community-based charities. We have an impressive record of incentivising giving in payroll giving and gift aid, but we want to do much more.

Nigel Dodds: While acknowledging what has been achieved, may I ask the Minister what impact VAT has had on charitable giving? Will the Treasury take on board the representations made by the charitable sector for the removal of VAT for charities?

Ivan Lewis: We have conducted two fundamental reviews of VAT and charities and have concluded that there would be no equitable solution. However, thanks to the changes to gift aid and the encouragement, particularly of small and medium-sized enterprises, to give through payroll giving, the amount of charitable giving is increasing significantly year on year. We need only reflect on the recent tsunami and other events to see that the charitable nature of the British people has never been stronger.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend shares my belief that this Government have done a great deal to encourage charitable giving. Does he agree that more attention should be paid to giving to universities—which are charities—and to the higher education sector generally? I know that there was a taskforce, and that the Chancellor has made some real changes, but people still say that there are not enough advantages to giving to universities as charitable organisations. We still lag far behind the level of giving in the United States in this regard.

Ivan Lewis: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have recently announced further investment support to universities. As part of the comprehensive review process, and of the stream that is looking into the needs of charitable organisations, we will of course examine the needs of the higher education sector. I have to say to him, however, that more resources than ever before are going into that sector year on year to meet the challenges of globalisation.

Low Incomes (Tax Burden)

Henry Bellingham: What steps he is taking to reduce the tax burden on people on very low incomes.

Ivan Lewis: The Government have already done a great deal to reduce the tax burden on people on low incomes. We have introduced the 10p starting rate of income tax, reformed national insurance contributions and introduced the working tax credit for hard-working families and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), I should like to quote the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). In Tuesday's Budget debate, he said that the number of people
	"facing marginal tax rates of 60 per cent. or more has increased by nearly 1 million, largely as a consequence of the workings of the tax credit system . . . I was brought up to believe that hard work and endeavour would be rewarded, not penalised."—[Official Report, 28 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 710.]
	Those are not the words of some junior Labour Parliamentary Private Secretary, but the wisdom of one of the most highly regarded new Labour Ministers of his generation. Will the Minister tell us whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or wrong?

Ivan Lewis: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) would be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman describe him as one of the most highly regarded Labour MPs, although I do not think that he was saying that when my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Health and he was asking him questions across the Dispatch Box.
	I shall respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's assertion. The number of families facing a marginal rate of more than 70 per cent. has fallen by more than 700,000 since 1998, from 740,000 to 240,000. The reality for low-income families is a take-up rate of 89 per cent., compared with 57 per cent. under family credit. For the poorest, the rate is 93 per cent. As we are talking about the burden on low-income families, let us remember when there were high interest rates—and therefore high mortgage rates—and when there was no minimum wage, no working tax credit and no minimum income guarantee for pensioners. Let us also remember what mass unemployment did to people on low incomes.

Si�n Simon: When the Paymaster General put through the tenfold increase in the one-year income disregard from 2,500 to 25,000 in Standing Committee last week, Conservative Members argued vehemently against the measure before voting for it. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain to them again exactly how this extremely imaginative measure will help and support working families into, and back into, employment?

Ivan Lewis: Conservative Members are clearly disoriented at the moment. They are not sure whether to be right-wing ideologues or to support people on low incomes. When we consider the consequences of incentivising people to work rather than to remain on welfare, we see that that is one of the primary reasons why people's standard of living is growing and why the unemployment figures have never been lower.

HIV/AIDS

Evan Harris: What estimate he has made of the level of funding the UK would need to contribute to achieve universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries.

Gordon Brown: Forty million people around the world have HIV and 4.9 million people were infected last year. The total funding gap is therefore 16 billion. The United Kingdom is committed to spend 1.5 billion from 2005 to 2008. We are the second largest donor in HIV/AIDS, and we are supporting programmes that cut the price of antiretroviral drugs. On that and other issues, I am today publishing the seventh annual report of our Government on the International Monetary Fund.

Evan Harris: I welcome that answer and pay my tribute, which is shared in many quarters, to the Chancellor's leadership on this issue internationally. Will he accept, however, that unless we ensure that not just our contribution but everyone'sencouraged by his leadershipis met, the danger is that, because there is a target, funding and infrastructure will be taken from other health priorities in the countries concerned to meet that target? I hope that he will agree that that is an issue.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken an interest in these issues over time. The sad fact is that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was to be a fund of $20 billion, is financed only to the tune of about $2.7 billion. We will have to do better in future years if we are to make the 2010 target. I believe that the only way in which we can do that is to find new forms of innovative financing, such as we have found for vaccinations, and such as we can find for other drugs. It is important that we get a consensus in this country to promote an international finance facility for those issues, so that we can then win support around the world.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the weeks after recess?

Geoff Hoon: The business for the week after the Easter recess will be as follows:
	Tuesday 18 AprilSecond Reading of the Commons Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 19 AprilMy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose an Humble Address to mark the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen's 80th birthday, followed by consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	Thursday 20 AprilConclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	Friday 21 AprilThe House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 24 AprilSecond Reading of the Finance Bill.
	May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, record on behalf of the entire House our thanks and appreciation for the extra duties that you have undertaken in recent weeks?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Theresa May: May I join the Leader of the House in thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the extra duties that you have performed in the Speaker's absence over recent weeks?
	I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I note that today, the last day before the recess, there are 39 written statements by Ministers, with no chance for questions to Ministers. Given his responsibilities to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future fewer written statements and more oral statements are made by Ministers?
	On Tuesday, the Foreign Office published its White Paper, Active diplomacy for a changing world, which moves the Government away from an ethical foreign policy to a policy of active diplomacy. Will the right hon. Gentleman make Government time available for a debate on that White Paper?
	According to a survey by the Faculty of Public Health, only a third of primary care trusts believe that they can deliver public health effectively. This month, there have been more than 4,700 job cuts in the health service, the Daily Express reports that cuts in vaccination programmes could put children's lives at risk, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), a former Health Secretary, complains that 200 million has been spent on consultantsnot medical consultants but management consultantsand the man the Chancellor asked to sort out NHS funding, Sir Derek Wanless, said today:
	The issues about the NHS are the issues about where the money's gone . . . Less has been achieved than might have been achieved.
	What a fitting epitaph for this Government. And yet, with all of this, the Health Secretary says in an interview in today's Financial Times, that this year the health service has
	had its best year ever.
	Perhaps it was the best for deficits and job cuts, but not for patients. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure a debate in Government time so that the Health Secretary can come to this House and hear from Members what is going on in the health service for which she is responsible?
	May we have a debate on equal opportunities? In his Budget the Chancellor cut tax relief on home computers, which could hit women particularly hard. The Government have scrapped the scheme of NHS golden hellos, and have cut funding for the NHS flexible careers scheme. Both schemes were intended to help women return to the health service. They are also cutting funds for the Equal Opportunities Commission. Those are hardly signs of a Government who are committed to equal opportunities and helping women in the workplace. We need a debate on the Government's policy for women.
	May we have a debate on the elderly? According to a survey by GE Life, about one in five people think that they will have to work part-time to supplement their incomes in retirementdouble the current number. And what can they look forward to in retirement? The Chancellor has cut help with their rising council tax bills. A report from the Healthcare Commission, the Audit Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection said that older people were subject to patronising and thoughtless attitudes. Age Concern has said
	too many older people in need of public services are . . . treated as second-class citizens.
	The elderly will not even be able to take up evening classes. The Association of Colleges tells us that funding will be frozen, charges will shoot up and classes will close.
	Finally, may we have a debate on the meaning of Cabinet government? We have been waiting for a ministerial reshuffle for some time, and the time may have come. After all, a week after the Budget statement the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning told us that people were being taxed to the limit, saying
	We are probably about at the limit of what people are prepared to pay to improve public services.
	Admittedly, attacking the Chancellor may be the way in which to keep a job at the moment. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for International Development has said that the Prime Minister himself is the key issue for voters, and that he should
	allow a smooth and rapid succession for Mr. Brown.
	Just at the time when the Prime Minister has changed his mind and supports elections to the House of Lords, the Leader of the House has told the Press Gallery that he is against a democratically elected second Chamber.
	Somehow I feel an Easter recess reshuffle coming on. I wish the right hon. Gentleman a very peaceful and uninterrupted recess.

Geoff Hoon: Once again, I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising such a range of subjects. Obviously, in the fullness of time, they will afford the opportunity for debate in the House. The right hon. Lady began by complaining that there had been 39 written statements. I did not quite reach 39 when I counted the debates that she encouraged us to hold, but the list fell not far short of that number, ranging across foreign and domestic policy.
	Of course, the House has a procedure for written ministerial statements. I assume that if my right hon. and hon. Friends did not table such statements, the right hon. Lady would complain about that as well. Trying to keep the House informed about matters that are of obvious consequence and fall within the House's rules seems to me a matter for congratulation, not complaint. If the right hon. Lady believes that written ministerial statements should be made in a different form, she has the opportunity under the House's rules to make representations to that effect. I am not aware that any such representations have been made other than today, just now, whichas the right hon. Lady will see if she looks at the rulesis a little late.
	The right hon. Lady asked for a debate on Foreign Office policy. The matter was raised last week, we are considering it, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity for such a debate in due course As for job cuts in the national health service, the right hon. Lady has adopted a common Opposition policy, which I vaguely recall from former timesthe policy of highlighting particular incidents, and purporting to suggest somehow that they represent a general trend. If she checks the position, she will find that a large number of jobs have been created in the NHS. There are a large number of new nurses, consultants and doctors, all providing vital health care for the people of this country. I hope that the right hon. Lady will put the record straight in future.
	I should have expected the right hon. Lady to welcome the use of consultancy to assist large organisations such as the national health service. I assume that she shares the Government's wish to ensure that the money that the NHS receives from the taxpayer is spent properly, wisely and effectively, and delivers the service that we all want. I should have thought that she would welcome the contribution that consultants can make to that, rather than criticising it.
	The use of the word epitaph was interesting. I know that Opposition Members do not like being reminded of the number of recent general elections that they have managed to lose, but I remind them that the most recent took place less than a year ago. As far as I recall, Parliaments can run for as long as five years. The Government have many more years to run, many more new policies to introduce, many more reforms to make and will continue with their commitment to the people of this country, delivering high quality services at an affordable price

Andrew Robathan: On and on and on.

Geoff Hoon: Well, I am being heckled about the length of time that this Government may continue, but that is a matter for the British people. They have certainly not shown much enthusiasm for the Conservative party recently, and there is little sign in the current polls that they intend to do so. I know that the hon. Gentleman is busy trying to change the party's policies, but we will all wait to see whether the result of those flip-flops is any more successful than previous efforts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman lives in hope, otherwise he would not be here. At the moment, it is all that he has got.
	As for a debate on equal opportunities, the Government would be delighted to defend their record on equal opportunities and, in particular, on care for the elderly. The Government are extremely proud of the substantial amounts of extra money that have been provided to support pensioners, especially the poorest pensioners, and we would be delighted to defend that record in any debate on the subject.
	As for the question of Cabinet government, we heard earlier today from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and we have heard from a series of Cabinet Ministers this week. I assure the right hon. Lady that Cabinet Government is alive and well. It certainly was an hour ago when I attended the most recent meeting of the Cabinet.

David Heath: With reference to the superfluity of written ministerial statements today, I remind the Leader of the House that the ministerial code of conduct contains a specific rule that such statements should not be given the day before a recess. Will he get a grip on his colleagues in other Departments and ensure that they abide by the rules?
	We need an urgent debate on long-term care for the elderly. I have asked two questions in consecutive weeks of the Prime Minister on the subject without any sort of sensible replyso I tried a different question to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. The Wanless report reinforces the point made by the royal commission that long-term care for the elderly should be provided free at the point of use and is an urgent matter. Given that five long Budgets ago the Chancellor peppered almost every paragraph with, Mr. Wanless this and Mr. Wanless that, he obviously sees Mr. Wanless as a guru

Andrew MacKinlay: He's a knight, now.

David Heath: He is now, but he was not then. In any case, it is time that we did something to give elderly people dignity in their old age. I hope that we can have an urgent debate.
	May we have a debate on housing? We have 1.5 million people waiting for a council house and homelessness has doubled in the lifetime of this Labour Government. We had an announcement in the Budget, with considerable fanfare, of 970 million for housing, but the small print of the budget for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister contains not a single extra penny for housing. We need an explanation of why this Government do so badly in providing social housing that people can afford.
	Finally, may we have a debate on communications with Australia, because there is evidently a problem? We hear that the Prime Minister has apologised for the only thing that we did not want him to apologise forsaying that he was goingand we also hear that he has fundamentally undermined the energy policy by saying that new nuclear power stations are the future. Why on earth are we bothering with a review? There is clearly something garbling communications with Australia, and it is not even the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House look into that and arrange a debate?

Geoff Hoon: I was intending to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman because there was a superfluity of candidates for the deputy leadership of the Liberal Democrats, and he sadly came third. However, we live in hope, because the website that encourages such matters has already opened a book on the next leadership contest.With our sterling support, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can only improve his position for next time.
	We welcome the Wanless report and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the Government's response. We want to study it, and we believe that it endorses our vision as set out in the White Paper, Our health, our care, our say. Everyone recognises that the social care system needs streamlining and reforming, and the report will help in a constructive debate about how to achieve that.
	I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman on ensuring the dignity of elderly people in retirementan issue that this Government have concentrated, and will continue to concentrate, on. On housing, he is well aware of the significant changes in our society, which clearly mean that more people require housing. In fact, today, more people have a roof over their head than ever before. I recognise that some of the social changes mean that more people are on waiting lists and looking for accommodation, but that does not mean that they are homeless, in the sense that they have nowhere appropriate to live. As for communications with Australia, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are extremely good; indeed, the flight home is going well.

Clive Betts: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see a recent documentary by the BBC on the unscrupulous and unacceptable practices of some estate agents? I know that the Government are committed to legislating for the introduction of a mandatory redress scheme that will cover all the activities of estate agents, but can he assure me that such legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, and that its scope will extend to the establishing of minimum criteria that must be met to qualify to set up as an estate agent? We owe it to our constituents to ensure that they are fully and properly protected in making what, for most of them, will be the most important financial transaction of their lives.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and as he rightly says, for most people, such financial transactions are probably the most important ones that they undertake in their entire lives. Estate agents are currently regulated by the Estate Agents Act 1979, which gives the Office of Fair Trading the power to prohibit persons from acting as estate agents in certain circumstances. However, the Government are looking at ways of improving estate agents' regulation, and we will put in place arrangements to ensure that consumers get redress from an independent body when they have legitimate grievances against estate agents. So the Government do take this issue very seriously, we recognise that there is public concern and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.

Greg Clark: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Department of Health's private finance initiative programme? Constituents in west Kent have been waiting for eight years for a hospital to replace one that relies on wooden huts and another that was built before the war. The decision rests with the Secretary of State for Health and she needs to make it without delay. We could use a debate to urge her to get on with it.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the Government's extensive hospital building programme, which has not been matched by any other Government in the entire history of the national health service. Obviously, we want to implement such proposals in each and every area of the country as soon as we can, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that it is important that they are soundly financially based and deliver improvements for his, my and other Members' constituents. We need to look carefully at each proposal to ensure that it can proceed, but I can assure him that the building programme for the NHS continues, and we can all be proud of it.

Gordon Prentice: We heard this week that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform will be set up as soon as possible. How are Members going to be selected to participate in it? Will the same people who served on the previous Committee serve on it, and will there be room for people like me?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is well aware, given his considerable previous experience of how Committees are selected in this place, that they are selected through the usual channels by agreement. Those who show expertise and promise in these matters are often preferred. I make no comment on his qualifications.

Andrew Turner: May I echo the request for a debate on the health service? In particular, who is responsible for it? This year, 200 staff in the Isle of Wight health service have lost their jobs, and it has been announced today that no further cuts are possible without damaging the quality of health care available to my constituents. The Secretary of State has said that such matters are for local managers, even though she appoints the people who appoint those managers. Who is actually responsible?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that question in the serious way that he seems to suggest. Clearly, the management of the NHS is ultimately the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, if she were seeking to manage each and every detail in every part of the country, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wouldrightlybe the first to complain. There has to be a system of decentralised control and, as I know from my own constituency, it is important to have local managers. They know the local situation and understand the concerns of all our constituents. Decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible. I am sure that, if he thinks about it, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.

Andrew MacKinlay: May we have a statement about senior civil servants getting honours? I should like to know why Sir Nigel Crisp was given a peerage. My working-class constituents get the sack if they screw up and, if they think that that is wrong, have to muster the courage to go to an industrial tribunal to argue for unfair dismissal. Why is it so different for senior people? Is there not a culture in our society that means that the ones who make the biggest cock-ups get the highest rewards?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unfair about a very distinguished civil servant who has made a very significant contribution to the NHS. Sir Nigel set out very clearly why he felt that it was appropriate to move on. I, for one, am delighted that he has moved on to the other place.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate on how to carry forward the reform of the House of Lords? Of course, I welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the cause of having an elected second Chamber, although I doubt his motives in making that announcement. However, it is highly undesirable that that discussion should be confined to parliamentary opinion, and even less desirable that it should be confined to the opinion of Front-Bench Members, who have a vested interest. Surely the debate should involve the whole nation, by means of a royal commission or of a Speaker's conference: will the right hon. Gentleman consider either of those alternatives?

Geoff Hoon: As the Government set out in the manifesto on which we fought the last election, certain fundamentals of the nature of reform must be put in place, and the relationship between the two Houses is not the least of them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably one of the few hon. Members eligible to stand for election in the other place. I am not encouraging him to do so, but I recognise that there is an important debate to be had. We made it clear in the manifesto that we wanted the Joint Committee to sort out the relationship between the two Houses and determine the power of the second Chamber, and then bring forward options about that Chamber's composition for this House to debate. I am sure that there will be a vigorous national debate when that happens.

David Drew: Before I wish my right hon. Friend a happy Easter, may I ask whether he was able, at his recent lunch, to discuss with his friends in the media the possible reform of the Lobby? Some of us believe that, given that everything in this wonderful institution is being reformed, it is about time for the Lobby to be reformed too. The matter is worthy of discussion. I advanced my interest in politics by reading about what happened in this place, which used to be well reported in the serious press. That is no longer the case, and many hon. Members would prefer briefings to be attributable, rather than unattributable. Is not that something that he, as Leader of the House, should take up?

Geoff Hoon: I got myself in trouble just lately with the media, so I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern. I made the same point yesterday, in a way that was perhaps more dramatic than his carefully observed criticisms. I think that Lobby reform is a matter that the House should consider although, ultimately, it is a question for the Lobby itself. How members of the Lobby report our proceedings is a matter for them, and for their editors, but there is a debate to be had about the relationship between Parliament and the media. It is a debate that I am happy to continue.

John Bercow: May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the detention of children by the Home Office? More than 2,000 children a year are held in immigration detention centres behind locked doors, high fences and barbed wire, with their privacy invaded, their family life compromised and their mental health threatened. Would not that debate be an ideal opportunity to look in some detail at the humane and successful alternative approach practised in Sweden?

Geoff Hoon: I will not accept any suggestion that the Government do not behave humanely in relation to children, whether or not their parents are legally entitled to be here. Obviously, a balance has to be struck between the country's interests in ensuring that we have a proper and effective asylum and immigration system and a requirement that that system covers the children of people who come here without an entitlement to remain. I am confident that we get the balance right, although I recognise that there is always room for improvement.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the illegal gangmaster responsible for the deaths of 21 cockle pickers was sentenced to 14 years in prison just this week. I hope that sends the clear message to all illegal gangmasters that we are after them. Unfortunately, the people who benefited and profited from the productthe cocklesescaped prosecution. Will he use his good offices to highlight the plight of the families of the people who died, and make representations to the Chinese Government to protect them? Even today, those people are being harassed and intimidated by illegal gangmasters still chasing them for money.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important aspect of that terrible and appalling case. Those responsible have been brought before the court and given quite a severe punishment, and he is right to stress the international dimension. Organised criminal gangs stretching around the world are able to move people from one part of the globe to another, rather like commodities. That is why the Government are determined to use existing powers and take extra steps to deal with the consequences of that appalling business, and to do so at source. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

George Young: May we have an early debate on the Government's policy towards pensioners? We have just concluded a four-day debate on the Budget, but the Government at no time explained why a 200 rebate was appropriate last year but not this year, when the council tax is even higher. Can we have an early debate so that Ministers can explain, to the House and to the nation's pensioners, why all of next month's increase in the state retirement pension has been wiped out by the removal of the rebate?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that last year's payment was a one-off provision of additional support. That was made clear at the time. He will also be aware that the Government have spent a substantial amount of extra money on pensioners, and that the very poorest pensioners in our society are 39 a week better off than in 1997. We have targeted extra resources on those pensioners who struggled up to that date, and at the same time we are looking at the question of local government funding and the arrangements for the council tax. That is a comprehensive approach, both to pensioners and the question of local government finance.

Gordon Banks: Post Office card accounts have been the subject of some debate in the House. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to speak to Ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions and the Treasury to ensure that, post-2010 and irrespective of what happens with those accounts, every person claiming benefit who wants to get those benefits via the post office will be able to do so?

Geoff Hoon: That issue is a regular feature of business questions on a Thursday, and I am delighted to be able to give my hon. Friend my regular answer. We absolutely agree that it is important that pensioners should be able to use the post office to receive payment and conduct necessary financial transactions. The Post Office account was always designed as an interim measure to ensure that pensioners would get used to the idea of using the post office in that way. Some 25 different Post Office accounts are available, so pensioners will be able to continue to use the post office as they do today, and to derive interest and financial benefits from the process. That seems to me to be something that the whole House should support.

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House review the arrangements for the Electoral Administration Bill? As far as I understand it, the Government will now seek to amend the legislation as it passes through the House of Lords to require all political parties to register all loans.
	Neither the Scottish National party nor Plaid Cymru have any places in the House of Lordswe simply cannot afford it. Given that we are perhaps the only political party unsullied by this dirty money, we have quite a lot to say on this issue. In view of the public interest in the issue and the serious allegations, surely the Bill should come back to this House.

Geoff Hoon: I have never noticed on the Benches, or I should say Bench, occupied by SNP Members any difficulty in hon. Members raising their voice, setting out their views or getting their ideas across. If the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated about his inability or indeed his isolation, I will be delighted to hear from him and I will ensure that his representations are passed to the appropriate quarter.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate after our return from the Easter break on the nature and quality of corporate social responsibility, particularly in respect of what we used to regard as the public utilities of this country? More and more we are dominated by a small number of large companies in every sectorenergy, retailing and so much elsebut public utilities are particularly important. Are we sure that, among companies, we still have a standard of investing back into the communities the money, resource and volunteer effort that we used to have?

Geoff Hoon: It is an important issue. I recognise that all companies make some contribution back to the community. I recognise equally in the modern world that more companies could do that. I am well aware, for example, of the energy companies engaging more in ensuring that we all properly insulate our homes. We can all congratulate them on that, but I recognise that they could do more.

John Hayes: May I amplify the call that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made for a debate on the plight of older people? It is necessary in view of the long-term care issues that Wanless highlights and which the Prime Minister first promised to deal with in 1997 at the Labour party conference. There is also the issue of old people who find it increasingly hard to access public services, who cannot get an adapted home because the Government have cut the number of social houses being built, and who will not be getting the 200 that they were given last year before the election when the Government exercised largesse, which has curiously metamorphosed into heartless parsimony.

Geoff Hoon: I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is describing. He talks about support in the home. Forty per cent. more people are today supported to live in their own home than in 199798. I do not know what is his experience with his constituents, but my experience is that most people appreciate that support. They believe that they are best in their own home surrounded by friends and family and familiar circumstances. That is what the overwhelming majority of my constituents say that they want and why the Government have responded. I simply do not recognise the description that he gives.

David Chaytor: Now that the tectonic plates appear to be shifting in respect of the Government's attitude to House of Lords reform and in view of the heightened public awareness of the composition of the House of Lords and related issues, does my right hon. Friend remember that the last time this House was given an opportunity to vote on Lords reform we could not reach agreement on any of the seven options? Does that not provide a powerful argument for an early debate on the subject in this House before the Joint Committee is established to do its work so that we avoid the risk of once again not being able to agree on any of the options that the Committee may bring forward.

Geoff Hoon: It is fair to say that on other technical issues my hon. Friend often confuses me, but on this one he does not. I invite him to look carefully at the experience that not only Robin Cook but previous Governments had in bringing forward options. The reason for establishing a Joint Committee is to avoid the problems that occurred in the past. No result could be achieved because no one believed that the various options were suitable in the light of the powers enjoyed by the second Chamber under the present arrangements. That is why it is so important to achieve an agreed understanding of the relationship between the two Houses and the powers of the second Chamber before those options are put.
	I invite my hon. Friend to look carefully at the manifesto, because it sets out a clear process for achieving that. Only once there is a shared understanding of the relationship between the two Houses does it seem sensible to bring forward options. On that basis, we can then have a clearer and more definitive vote on those options, on a free vote.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House presumably believes in ministerial collective responsibility, will he arrange for a personal statement at the Dispatch Box from the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, who this week said that taxpayers were at the limit of what they were prepared to pay for public services, which was then repudiated by Treasury Ministers at Question Time only an hour ago.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman raises the question of collective responsibility as if it is some form of theological doctrine. As a former Minister, he will know that all Ministers are bound by the principle and all Ministers, including Ministers of education and at the Treasury pursue it consistently.

David Taylor: In a few hours the Division bell will ring for the last time and hundreds of Members will pour out of Carriage Gates back to their constituencies for the 18-day recess. Many will spend all of that time in their constituencies and will need good access to information and equipment to continue to give the high level of service that constituents rightly demand. Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate on the stability and range of services given remotely by the parliamentary and data video network PDVNto Members in their constituencies? On the parliamentary estate, the quality of service is reasonable and improving, but remotely that is much less true. We need to give a far better standard of service in the third millennium than we are able to give now with the current equipment.

Geoff Hoon: I rather suspect that the great majority of our colleagues have already set off to serve their constituents without necessarily waiting for tolling of the final Division bell. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I know that the authorities of the House are continuing to improve the computer provision available to hon. Members. If he has a particular concern and there is a particular issue, I am sure that I can take it up for him.

Michael Jack: From across the world, with remarkable clarity, the Prime Minister has re-emphasised the importance he attaches to climate change and especially to beginning work on efforts Kyoto post-2012. However, such was the importance that he attached to that that the Government's report on climate change came out under the cover of a written parliamentary answer.
	Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate in Government time so that the House may express its own views on this important issue and have an opportunity to comment on the Government's review of climate change and to help inform the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is holding an inquiry into climate change after 2012?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend's comments demonstrate the fact that this Government and this country have one of the best records in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. The new climate change programme built on the United Kingdom's position as one of the world's leaders in promoting global action on climate change. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's observations would be better received on the Labour Benches if he gave credit to the significant leadership that my right hon. Friend has shown in the world. I realise that the Conservative party is beginning the long journey towards taking those issues seriously, although the Conservatives' approach to the climate change levy means that there is still some doubt about their consistency.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman of an observation made recently by Mr. Zac Goldsmith, editor of The Ecologist and, I understand, a member of the Conservative party, who said:
	Cameron would not have got involved in the environment agenda if there was not a demand for it. I am taking advantage of a political party in disarray, desperately trying to find a new identity and my goal is to help that identity form around some of the ideas that are essential to The Ecologist.
	I wish him well and I wish the right hon. Gentleman well.

Keith Vaz: May we have an early debate on a shocking report published yesterday in Leicester, which shows that inactivity among children could result in type 2 diabetes in later life? The survey, based on a review of five schools in my constituency, shows that two thirds of children do not walk to school and half of them spend at least four hours a day watching television or playing computer games. As my right hon. Friend is committed to fitness and activity, despite being a supporter of Derby County, could he arrange for an early debate? Those findings have serious implications for our children in future years.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue for society. I recognise that it is vitally important that young people and schoolchildren should exercise and participate in school and other sport, and should take full advantage of the opportunities that the Government make available to them. There are a number of projects and programmes in Leicester to encourage healthy eating and exercise, although I am not sure whether they are in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am sure that they will be taken upperhaps following the example of the team that he supports, which I wish some success next season, but not as much as Derby County.

John Pugh: Given that the new dental contract kicks in on 1 April and that there is massive anxiety about it in every constituency, would not it be appropriate to have a statement or a debate about it soon after the Easter recess?

Geoff Hoon: The new dental contract, which is available to all dentists, is a good one; it is fair and offers NHS dentists average remuneration of about 80,000, after their expenses have been taken into account. That income is guaranteed for about three years. There are more NHS dentists than ever, so it is right that dentists accept the contract and the indications are that they will do so. I realise that there is continuing debate about the need to go on improving the quality and range of NHS dentistry, to which the Government are committed.

Peter Bone: In my constituency, dentistry has been privatised by the Government, yet on Tuesday I received a phone call from Dr. Edmund Chan, a senior dentist in Rushden in my constituency, who had found a fully qualified Polish dentist who wanted to work in his practice under the NHS, but the local PCT will not fund it. May we have an urgent debate on the health service?

Geoff Hoon: We have had a number of debates recently on health service matters. On the hon. Gentleman's point about privatisation, most NHS dentists are actually private businesses, working under a contract with the NHS. They have been offered a contract that is generous and fair and will give them significant opportunities not only to practise their profession but also to make a decent living from dentistry. Of course, if dentists choose not to take up that offerin our society, they are free to choose not to do sothe local NHS can use that funding to buy in other dental services. That is how our system works and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it should be so.

Philip Hollobone: May we have a debate in Government time about patients whose operations are cancelled by the NHS? I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the case of Mr. Geoffrey Wright, who lives in Rothwell in my constituency and, at 72 years of age, has just had his heart bypass operation cancelled for the fifth time. He is extremely unhappy about the situation.

Geoff Hoon: I perfectly understand why the hon. Gentleman raises a particular case and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responds to him about it in detail. However, I am sure that he understands that operations are cancelled for a variety of reasons and that he is in no way suggesting that that case is typical of the national health service as a whole.

Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House agree that one group who will not be enjoying Easter are the families of people murdered by criminals released after serving only half their sentence under the Government's early release scheme? Is he aware of the reports last weekend that people sentenced to life imprisonment are in fact being released after serving only a fraction of their sentence, and will he review his policy of brushing aside repeated requests for a debate on honesty in sentencing, which should not be left to half-hour Adjournment debates such as that secured yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)?

Geoff Hoon: This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of early release; in the past, he has also complained about probation arrangements. The issue is straightforward. Everyone sympathises with anyone who has been the victim of a serious crime, such as he describes, because a criminal was released early, but those measures have been in place for a long time and, as he is aware, they are a necessary part of managing our prison population. They were examined under the last Government, so when the hon. Gentleman refers to this Government's early release scheme he knows full well that it was also his Government's early release scheme. Such arrangements have been a constant feature of penal policy for a long time, and having looked at them the last Conservative Government came to the conclusion that any change along the lines advocated by the hon. Gentleman would be damaging to the maintenance of good order in our prisons.

Nadine Dorries: Will the Leader of the House consider allocating part of the debate on the NHS to the role of nurses in the NHS? I am sure that he is aware that this week nurses were awarded a 2.5 per cent. pay rise, yet according to the Royal College of Nursing, taking inflation into account that is a pay cuta view that I support. Nurses are being asked to take on greater responsibility, served with redundancy notices and given a pay cut, so does not that professional body of hard-working people deserve to have their voice heard in this place?

Geoff Hoon: I could have agreed with almost everything that the hon. Lady said, apart from the slightly strange suggestion that there is a pay cut. Not only are nurses being awardedrightly, for their service to the NHSan above-inflation pay increase, they also benefit from a range of incremental improvements in their pay every year. The real-terms increase for nurses will be quite a bit above the headline pay increase to which she refers. So the first point is that there will not be a cut.
	The second point is that the Government value enormously the work of nurses. That is why we have employed more than 78,000, in addition to those who were in employment, serving the health service, in 1997. Perhaps next time the hon. Lady will look at the figures a little more fairly, but I hope that she will accept that we enormously value the work of nurses and will continue to do so.

Points of Order

Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask you to examine this proposition and to use, if you think it right, your authority to improve an infuriating situation that increasingly concerns me. I received a reply from the Foreign Office on Tuesday to a question in which I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to define the British national interest in the middle east. After five working days, the reply came that the Foreign Office would let me know shortly what the definition of British national interest is in the middle east. That in itself is an outrage. However, the following day, I got a more detailed answer that merely refers me to a website at the Foreign Office at which the answer about the British national interest is apparently given. Incidentally, that practice is widespread across many Departments. I believe that it is right that if Members of Parliament ask a parliamentary question, they are entitled to a full answer from the Department, not some impertinent note referring them to a website, which they may or may not have time to go into to try to find the answer. If a proper parliamentary answer is to be given to Parliament, it should be given in the Queen's English in understandable terms, so that Members of Parliament have it on the record and do not have to go off to the Library to ask someone to look it up for them.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that I am possibly more used to gaining access to websites than my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), but I have great sympathy for his concern, because a website can changeit can be edited and amendedwhereas a parliamentary answer remains on the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Front Bench, is perhaps the appropriate person to hear what the hon. Gentlemen have said, because he looks after the interests of Membersas, of course, does the occupant of the Chair. Although the occupant of the Chair has no responsibility for answers given by Ministers, it is right that Members of Parliament should get the fullest help when they ask parliamentary questions and not be faced by either undue delay or any kind of elongated paper chase. However, it is not uncommon for parliamentary answers to refer to other documents or previous answers, so that cannot be excluded, one suspects, in the name of efficiency. On the whole, there should be a bias in favour of providing succinct and prompt answers to Members of Parliament.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my business question a moment ago, I properly referred to the importance of climate change, with reference to the Prime Minister's remarks. My further observations involved making a sensible request, particularly in the light of the investigation that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is to undertake into matters connected with the Kyoto protocol post-2012. Will you rule whether the Leader of the House was in order in not addressing that issue or being helpful in response to a Member's question, as the code of ministerial practice requires, in not indicating whether parliamentary time was available to assist the work of the Select Committee and in responding to me in simply party political terms on a serious issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be a unique occasion in the annals of parliamentary history if a Minister did not give the fullest answer to a question. The right hon. Gentleman must not pursue business questions now, but in a spirit of indulgence, as we are on the eve of the recess, I allowed him to put that point on the record.

BILL PRESENTED

Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc.

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. David Miliband, Yvette Cooper and Jim Fitzpatrick presented a Bill to make provision about the delegation of functions by the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales and about the validation of things done or evidenced by, and the authentication of the fixing of, their seals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 164].

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation Act 2006
	Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Act 2006
	Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006
	Criminal Defence Service Act 2006
	National Insurance Contributions Act 2006
	Terrorism Act 2006
	London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006
	Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
	Consumer Credit Act 2006
	Identity Cards Act 2006
	Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Siobhain McDonagh: At the last election, I made five personal pledges to my constituents. All those pledges appeared in my election literature, and one of them was to turn two schools in the east of my constituencyMitcham Vale and Tamworth Manorinto academies. Both schools have been completely rebuilt since 1997, and they have some of the best facilities anywhere in the country, but while other schools in Merton are improving fast, they are both still in the bottom few per cent. of the country's schools for GCSE results and for the value that they add to pupils' education. In Mitcham Vale, nine out of 10 boys still fail to get five good GCSEs.
	Local people are well aware that those schools are poor. They both have space for 1,200 pupils, but they are barely half full. Every year, I see dozens of parents in my surgery, many in tears, because they have been told that the schools that they want are full and that their children must go to either Mitcham Vale or Tamworth Manor. So, on the doorstep, the reaction to the suggestion of creating academies was very positive, as residents are fed up with bad behaviour and low results. They want to see schools with a new ethos, strong discipline and good results. So my pledges went down well at the ballot box. Although Mitcham and Morden was Conservative until 1997, Labour's majority is now more than 30 per cent.
	I am pleased to say that Merton's Labour council shares my belief that academies, with new sixth forms to attract ambitious students, could take both schools out of the doldrums. The council is working hard to get the new academies opened in September this yeara very tight timetable. Like me, it is concerned that any delay could make the schools unsustainable.
	At this point, I should stress that we have had great support from the Department for Education and Skills and, in particular, Lord Adonis. In fact, I cannot praise my noble Friend enough. In my nine years as an MP, I have witnessed some truly excellent Ministers, but he has always been available for advice and support, and he has been the most helpful of all. I hope that that can be put on the record.
	With the support of the DFES, we were able to find two excellent sponsors for our academies. One of them was the Church of England, which has been involved in education for centuries. That sponsor would appeal to many of my constituents who want a local faith-based school. We have a very large African population in Mitcham, and a school based on Christian values, morality and good behaviour will appeal to many parents.
	The other sponsor was Lord Harris of Peckham, whom hon. Members perhaps best know of as a close ally of the new Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). The general public may know of him as the millionaire owner of Carpetright, but in south London, he is also known as a sponsor of several successful schools. His Croydon city technology college started in 1990, with 57 first-choice applications and only 13 per cent. of pupils getting five A to C GCSEs. Now the figures are about 3,000, and 91 per cent. respectively. Bacon's technical college's results have gone from 14 to 72 per cent., and the academy in Peckham now has a sixth form of 130 students, where previously there was none. Independent data put Harris schools in the top 6 per cent. in England. I may not agree with the noble lord's politics, but even I have to admire his personal commitment and drive to educate children who often find things tough in south London.
	Both sponsors would give their schools an immediate change of ethos, which is just what they need if they are to attract students, improve results and, in the end, stay open. The wonderful new facilities at those schools were built using the private finance initiative, so there were still significant financial and legal issues to overcome, but I am pleased to say that they have been sorted out, thanks to hard work by those in the DFES and Merton council. That takes us to the consultation stage.
	Earlier this year, there were three public meetings, attended by more than 500 people. A questionnaire was sent to all local parents and another was put on Merton's website. I, too, ran a survey of residents in the neighbourhoods around the schools. There was a well-organised campaign against academies, led by unions, governors and retired teachers, who, for perfectly honourable reasons, believe that religions and business men should not be involved in our schools. Those who ran the consultation went a long way to ensure that those voices were heard. Indeed, some people complained that the eight or nine people behind the campaign against academies all got to speak at length at the meetings, drowning out the voice of ordinary parents, but at least they had a chance to air their concerns and to have their questions answered. For instance, it was made clear that the schools would be charitable trusts. The new sponsors could not profit from them or sell their assets. If for any reason a school closed, its land would revert to the ownership of the local authority. It was also made clear that there would be no selection by ability.
	The result of the consultation was a clear majority in favour of the proposals, by about two to one. Sadly, there were only about 700 responsesthree quarters of them as a result of my surveybut it is fair to say that that whole process showed no widespread opposition to the plans. Next was the simple matter of getting Merton council's overview and scrutiny panel to agree. Labour does not have a majority on that committee, even though Merton is a Labour council, so this was obviously a concern.
	Back in September, however, a rising political star made an amazing statement. He said:
	There are times in this quite new politics we have when Tony Blair sits in the middle of the British political spectrum . . . Tuition fees. Foundation hospitals. City academies. When he does these things, I want a Conservative Party that says yes, that is a good idea . . . Not one that seeks a way of opposing him and just looks opportunistic and insincere.
	That speaker was the right hon. Member for Witney. So, there was no way that Merton's Conservatives would now oppose city academies or behave in a way that was opportunistic and insincere, or was there? Well, while the Leader of the Opposition in the country was telling us that he wanted to speed up the creation of city academies, the Conservative party in Merton decided to slow it down. In November, it brought a motion to Merton council
	to advise Cabinet to reconsider its decision regarding . . . Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor and to postpone it until January 2007.
	When it lost that motion, it put out leaflets that said:
	Labour Councillors voted to hand
	the schools
	over to private sponsorsgive away millions of pounds of Council taxpayers money . . . .The Labour Government shower the sponsors with Knighthoods and peerages.
	Merton's Conservatives seemed not to notice that the only peer involved in the Merton academies was a Tory and an ally of their leader, or that he would be investing his own money in the schools, not receiving money from Merton council tax payers. But, of course, when the crunch came at the overview and scrutiny meeting, surely they would follow their leader and back academies. Well, there might be a new face at the top, but on the ground, they are still the same old Tories, and yes, they are opportunistic and insincere, because, along with a handful of unelected so-called representatives, they voted to ignore the public and reject academies.
	Thankfully, there was still time to hold an emergency cabinet meeting, where the proposals were put back on timetable. However, there are still other hurdles to be crossed if the schools are to become academies in September. There are still more meetings to come. I am raising the issue today to draw attention to the damage being done by local politicians who are opportunistic and insincerepoliticians who deliberately defy their leader and when he says flip they say flop; politicians who would rather put their personal agendas ahead of the future of thousands of children. Our children get only one chance. Funding in Merton's schools is up by more than 1,300 per pupil since 1997. Results have gone up at all key stages and many of our schools, including Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor, have been rebuilt.
	Sadly, however, the fact is that some schools need extra help. I believe that academies are one answer. My constituents agree with me. My local council agrees with me. Even the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. I hope that, as a result of this Adjournment debate, we can persuade Merton's Conservatives to agree with all of us, to stop behaving so irresponsibly, and to start putting our children first.

David Heath: It is always a delight to take part in pre-recess Adjournment debates, because they provide such a splendid opportunity for Back-Bench Members, in particular, to raise issues that may be particular to their constituencies, or wider issues that they do not have the opportunity to raise on other occasions. That is a valuable opportunity, and I am a little saddened that today fewer Members than usual seem able to take advantage of it. I have no doubt that the quality will outweigh the quantity.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm for the House, the nation and the record how many Liberal Democrats there are in the Chamber?

David Heath: My colleagues are all fully engaged in Committee work at the moment, maintaining the Opposition to this rotten Government that the Conservatives seem to have abandoned over recent days. I applaud my colleagues for that. It is extremely important that we have a party of opposition in the House, not one that is always willing to collude when things get tough.
	Some issues that have been raised time and time again in business questions, which take place each week on a Thursday, simply never get the benefit of a debate. I am not going to use this opportunity to raise issues from my constituency; I shall suggest matters that ought to be debated before the recess, and certainly before the next recess. No. 1 on my list was raised again in business questions today. It has been raised at every business questions for weeks, if not months. I am talking about the future of Post Office card accounts and the effect on sub-post offices. I found the Leader of the House's response today one of the most laughable that I have ever heard. He suggested that one of the reasons for having what he described as the interim Post Office card account was to allow old age pensioners to get used to using the post office.

Theresa May: That is what he said.

David Heath: I am grateful for the confirmation from the right hon. Lady. I have got news for the Leader of the House: pensioners do not need practice in using the post office; they have used it throughout their adult life, and possibly in their childhood as well. They value the post office as something precious in their community. That was why they were so desperately keen to ensure that the Post Office card account was put in place: it enabled them to take cash out at their local sub-post office, which was to their benefit because of the way in which they prefer to do their business and budget, and was also to the benefit of the local post office, in making sure that it was a viable concern.

Theresa May: Perhaps I could come to the assistance of the Leader of the House at this point, and suggest that there was one aspect of what he said that might have had an element of truth. Many pensioners in my constituency are having to get used to using a different post office because their local post officessuch as those in Ross road and Woodlands park in Maidenheadhave been closed under this Government.

David Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and I note how cunningly she inserted a reference to her constituency in that interventionbut the same story applies in every constituency and, frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you ain't seen nothing yet. If we see the demise of the Post Office card account, we see the demise of small sub-post offices across the country, whether they are in rural or urban areas. That is something that we in the House fought to ensure did not happen. Promises were made at the Dispatch Box by everybody from the Prime Minister down that arrangements would be put in place to ensure the safety of the post office network. The Post Office card account was an integral part of that. I maintain that there was never any suggestion that it was a temporary or interim measure when it was introduced. It was there as a safeguard for the future of the post office network.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about this matter, because we have all been subjected to massive closures. In the largest town in my constituency, we went from five post offices down to one, in Belper. That was done under the urban regeneration programme, or something like that.

David Taylor: Reinvention.

Patrick McLoughlin: Well, it is another new Labour word. Can the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) tell me when he first heard that the Post Office card account was only a temporary measure?

David Heath: I recall that I heard it from the Leader of the House at business questions when it emerged as a way of getting him off the hook when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber were asking him why Post Office card accounts were suddenly being closed, and why the Department for Work and Pensions clearly had not the slightest interest in maintaining the post office network, despite all the promises that were given. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) revealed last week that letters had been written to pensioners to warn them that if they went to the post office and took cash out, they were likely to be mugged on their way homethat is a great help to the post office network. That is the sort of nonsense that we have had to face throughout the sad and sorry decline of the network, because of the Government's abandonment of the promises that they purported to give about its protection.

Michael Wills: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how much the Conservatives invested in the post office network during their 18 years in government, and will he tell us how much this Government have investedfor example, to continue the rural post office network?

David Heath: I have not the slightest idea how much the Conservative Government invested in the post office network. There were closures of post offices under that Government, as there have been closures since, but the latest development is the unkindest cut of all, because it will mean that the postmasters and postmistresses who foolishly took this Government at their word when they said that they intended to maintain the post office network will see that that was a con. The fact that the Government are reneging on their promises will be disastrous for our post office network, and I feel sorry for the people who invested their life savings in trying to maintain a viable business, but are now having the rug pulled from under them.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I am taking a lot of interventions, which means that we are extending the length of the debatealthough perhaps that may be a good thing today.

Bob Spink: I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, because I was going to raise this issue but now I will not, because he is covering the points in an excellent, admirable and eloquent manner. Does he realise that there were 19,000 post offices when the Conservatives left power in 1997, but that many of them have been shut down by the Labour Government? That is hurting the most vulnerable people in our society, damaging our high streets and changing the fabric of our community, which is deplorable.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman's last point was absolutely accurate. He knows that I share his view, because I have been arguing about the matter for several years. Labour Members sometimes experience self-delusion. They believe their rhetoric and think that the Government are performing better on some areas than the previous Conservative Government, although they are not. I was no supporter of the Conservative GovernmentI thought they were disastrous.
	The problem hugely affects vulnerable people. I referred to housing during business questions, and that is a similar such problem. Some 1.5 million people are waiting for a council house500,000 more than under the Conservatives. The number of homeless people has doubled and the Government are building half as much affordable social housing as the Conservatives did in their last year in government. That does not sound to me like a Labour Governmentit certainly does not sound like a socialist Government.

David Taylor: rose

David Heath: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has something to say about that.

David Taylor: I was never one for inhaling Millbank press releases in my time as a candidate. Nevertheless, it has to be said that during the 18 years of the Conservative Government, for all sorts of reasonsI do not necessarily go by the simplistic clich of holding the Government of the day responsible for everything that happensthe number of post offices went down from about 24,000 to about 18,000. There was a 25 per cent. reduction in those 18 years, and the Conservatives cannot walk away from that.

David Heath: Indeed the Conservatives cannot, and I would be the last person who would allow them to do so. The hon. Gentleman has always been a beacon of common sense from the Labour Benches, which, I suspect, is why he has not had the advantage of any preferment during the long period of this Government.
	Let me move on to the second topic that clearly requires a debate because of its importance to many hon. Members: the state of the health service. I will start with a clear statement: the Government have invested more money in the health service than I can remember any previous Government doing. That is extremely welcome and we should not run away from that fact, or be anything other than pleased that they were prepared to make that investment. However, the outcomes do not match the input, and that is why members of the public and Members of the House are worried.
	I was part of the primary care system in my previous professional existence, although that was an awfully long time ago. I am extremely worried about what is happening in primary care. I worry that out-of-hours services have been decimated throughout the country. The situation is especially worrying for those of us who live in rural areas because there is now every likelihood that people will not get a general practitioner to attend for a considerable time if they have the misfortune to fall ill. A similar point can be made about the ambulance service, which is underperforming in many of our rural areas.
	There is no such thing as NHS dentistry in many parts of the country. No matter how many times the Government insist that everything is all right in dentistry, our constituents know that everything is not all right because their local dentist practices are opting out of the health service and no longer providing NHS treatment. The idea that people having to travel 40 or 50 miles to visit their dentist is convenient health provision under the NHS is nonsense.
	There is huge variation among our acute services and hospitals. The substantial programme of hospital building has been extremely welcome. I have been waiting for a new hospital in Frome for nine or 10 years, so it is wonderful news that it looks as if we will soon have one. However, equally, cottage hospitals in many parts of the country are closing because of a lack of funds. Major general hospitals are being hamstrung by their lack of funds, which might be because of existing operating practices, or debts that they inherited from management failures years ago. For example, the Royal United hospital in Bath is still shackled by the mistakes of a previous generation of managers, and that is affecting care in our communities now. I do not for the life of me understand how it can be right for a present generation of patients to pay the price for funding mistakes made a generation ago, and the situation is a real worry.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in celebrating the fantastic reduction in waiting times for hip replacements in the NHS since 1997? The average waiting time was well over 18 months then, and it is six months today. Will he also welcome the introduction of statins, which have reduced the need for cardiac surgery, yet do not appear in any statistics on outcomes in the NHS?

David Heath: Of course I welcome those things. I welcome the significant advances that the Government have made on reducing waiting times, although that certainly should have been the case, given the investment that has gone into the service. I am sorry, but I cannot give the Government the credit for discovering statins and disseminating their use. However, it is welcome that they are available. I was one of the first Members to call for their provision as a first response, and that is now a matter of course. It is extremely welcome that the need for cardiac surgery has been massively reduced.
	However, I do not welcome wards that are mothballed. There are medical and surgical staff, as well as lay staff, who are being laid off. I do not welcome the fact that I have a constituent who came to see me the other day who is in the third stage of breast cancera late stage. She has been refused Herceptin by her hospital trust. All the arguments about Herceptin involve whether it is appropriate for first-stage cancers, and the need to await an assessment by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as to whether it is an effective remedy for first and second-stage cancers. I am talking about a third-stage cancer. The only reason why the lady cannot receive the drug treatment that not only she wants, but her consultant physician insists is the right course for her, is that the hospital will not pay for it, because it does not have the money. That is scandalous.

Nigel Griffiths: That is wrong.

David Heath: The Minister says that that is wrong. But that is what has happened to one of my constituents. I have written to the Secretary of State for Health. Other constituents who write to me cannot understand why their long-term prescriptive needs are not met by the health service, when those of some other categories are. We should be profoundly worried about that, and about the state of the health service.
	I worry that we spend our time changing the structures of the health service rather than getting to grips with the outcomes, which are so important for patients. Mental health is always a Cinderella service. It is always the last area to be considered when it comes to funding, and the appropriate emphasis is not placed on it. I thought that we would see that happening when the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was the Secretary of State. He showed a genuine interest in the mental health service. Since then interest has evaporated, and we can see it no longer.
	Long-term care is a scandal in this country. When I say in this country, I mean in England, because it is not a scandal in Scotland. In England, patients receiving long-term care are still required to sell their homes so as to maintain their dignity in old age and look after their personal social care, as Sir Derek Wanless has pointed out in his report published today, and as the royal commission pointed out years ago. The Prime Minister said in 1997 that he could not live in a country where people had to sell their homes to secure long-term care. Yet he is still living here, and elderly people still have to sell their homes to secure long-term care. We must deal with that.

Norman Lamb: Is it not incredible that the Government set up a royal commission to examine the matter that my hon. Friend has raised, nothing was done to implement the recommendations, and now a taskforce is being set up to re-examine it?

David Heath: It is incredible, because we know what the answer is. We know what needs to be done.
	There is an artificial division between personal care and nursing care when dealing with elderly patients, particularly with people who have Alzheimer's disease or another dementia. This is nonsensical, but the practical implications for patients and their families are immense. If we are a civilised society, it is something that we need to address. There are many things that pensioners would have on their list of priorities.
	I cannot let this opportunity pass without mentioning yet again the 200 rebate. I cannot think of anything more cynical, or more guaranteed to bring the body politic into disrepute, than offering a bribe of 200 before a general election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said from the Dispatch Box that the Government could now afford, because of their management of the economy, to mitigate the cost of the council tax for pensioners. One year later, council tax increased by 5 per cent. and the Chancellor could no longer afford the 200. Pensioners ended up paying an extra 200 or 250 on council tax. That is disgraceful. Labour Members should be ashamed of that.
	I despair of a system that is so unfair for so many of our fellow citizens. I will not prolong the argument over council tax, but the system does not work for those who are on low or fixed incomes. It is unfair to them. We should recognise that and do something about it.

Andrew Turner: Whatever the demerits of council tax, does the hon. Gentleman accept that with local taxation the key issue is the decisions made by local councillors about how much to increase the tax? Whatever the system, if councillors spend too much they will have to put up the tax by too much. That is self-evident from my local authority. Having been under Liberal Democrat control for almost 20 years, in the past four years it has increased council tax by 13 per cent., 14 per cent. and then by about 3 or 4 per cent. consecutively. This year, when the Tories took control, they were able to increase council tax by less than the rate of inflation. That is a decision for local people, whatever the tax system.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman can make his local political points if he wishes. I invite him to reflect on the experience of Conservative councils throughout the country, which had to increase council tax year after year because of the withdrawal of Government grant. Let us not get into a big debate[Interruption.] I am happy to have a debate if that is what hon. Members wish. I make it absolutely plain that there is no relationship between local spending decisions and the main part of council tax increases, because of the gearing effect and the infamous effect of central Government decisions. That is why councils throughout the country, whether they are Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, find themselves increasing council tax every year, knowing that the people whom they serve cannot afford the increases. Councils have to meet the statutory requirements that the Government foist upon them.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to me for a second time. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), he referred to Conservative councils. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the figures clearly show that the average band D council tax throughout the country for people living under Conservative-controlled councils is still 81 less than those in the same band under Labour-controlled councils, and 88 less than council tax under Liberal Democrat-controlled councils?

David Heath: The right hon. Lady knows better than that. She knows the structure of local government finance. If she wants an illustration, I will take her to my constituency. I can take her to Milbourn Port, on one side of the county border, where the average band D payment for a council tax payer will be 50 less in Liberal Democrat-controlled South Somerset district council and Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council than if one were to cross the county border into Conservative-controlled Dorset county council.
	We can all give such illustrations, but they do not mean anything. There is something deeply wrong about the structure of local government finance. There are some authorities that historically have never had a fair share of education funding, for example. They have never had the resources provided per pupil to match in any way those provided for other areas. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) knows this very well, because Leicestershire has been dealt with badly over many years. Somerset is another example, and I believe that Norfolk is another. There must be transparency in the system.
	What the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) says is right. People make local decisions and they should set the tax, which would be related directly to the amount that they were spending. The local population could then decide whether to back the councillors or sack them. That is the right way in which to operate local government.

Michael Wills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will not take any more interventions on this point, because I want to move on to my last point.

Norman Lamb: Will my hon. Friend give way on another point?

David Heath: All right. This is the last intervention that I shall take.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend mentioned the 200 payment, which was used as a means to get the Government through the general election. We have found that in health, for example, difficult decisions appeared to be postponed until after the election. In Norfolk we have a 20 million black hole with the Norfolk and Norwich University hospitala flagship private finance initiative hospital that is facing some 700 possible job cuts. Does that not demonstrate that the system was manipulated to get the Government through the general election? Now all the problems are coming to light.

David Heath: My hon. Friend is right. I make a prediction: we will have a particularly liberal Budget in about three or four years, which will see the Government through the next election. It was ever thus. Whichever Government are in power, they manipulate the figures for their electoral advantage. It is a great shame.
	My last point takes us right away from parochial and even national matters to the international scene. We need a debate on what is happening in the areas of the world in which we as a nation have taken a particular interest. I find it extraordinary that since the onset of the conflict we have not had a debate on the foreign affairs issues associated with Iraq. We have an Army in the field in a country racked with violence, where enormous difficulties face our very brave men and women who go out there and serve their countryand the House does not debate it.
	The House hears occasional statements from the Ministry of Defence, but we do not have an opportunity to say what we think about the conduct of affairs in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, another dangerous theatre in which we are engaged. That seems wrong. I look back at the speeches that I made on 18 March 2003 in the debate on the Iraq war, and I do not resile from any of the points that I made then. I believe that I was right. Others will take a different view. I accept that there respectable differences of opinion about whether we should have engaged in the conflict in Iraq, but events have happened exactly as I said they would at the time, to the detriment of many people in Iraq, and sadly, many British lives have been lost. We owe it to the people whom we send to Iraq to have a clear view about what is likely to happen.
	A much more mature debate is taking place in America. American military doctrine is being questionednot just the decision to go into Iraq, but how the American military conduct themselves. The idea of overwhelming strength, which has been a basic American military doctrine since Colin Powell, is being questioned as an appropriate response to insurgency. Americans are looking at the conduct of British troops back in the Malay insurgency and in east Africa, to learn lessons about how to deal effectively with insurgency.
	That may be a lost cause for the Americans. I was disturbed to read in a poll recently that 90 per cent. of all American soldiers believe that they are fighting Iraq as a direct consequence of 9/11a matter in which Iraq was not involved. But they believe that that is a direct response. Iraq lurches towards civil war, despite the good things that we perceive happening. I am not one of those who say that the election was not a good thing. Of course it was a good thing to have an election, but I also recognise the escalating violence, the determination of large parts of the population to engender further conflict, and the difficulties that our troops face daily.
	We should have a debate on that in the House, as we should on the very difficult task that we have set our troops in Afghanistan, another lawless area in the world, without a clear mission that they are expected to achieve. The sooner we have that, and the sooner we establish the grounds that we set for the withdrawal of our troops and an appropriate exit strategy, the better it will be not only for British interests, but for world interests and increasing stability.
	That was a brief canterwith many interventions, which prolonged the time for which I spokethrough essential topics of debate for the House, which we have failed to debate over the past Session or before the recess, and which we should debate at the first opportunity when we return.

Michael Wills: I shall be fairly brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a plea to Ministers to implement as rapidly as possible some of the recommendations in the recent health White Paper, particularly in relation to integrating care services. In my constituency I have a special interest in seeing the integration of Swindon social services, run by the borough council, with Swindon primary care trust.
	Since its inception in 1997 Swindon social services department has had a long and troubled history. It inherited from Wiltshire county council a deficit of 1 million, and it has never been able to get out from under that burden. That has nothing to do with the quality of the social workers involved, who are all, in my experience, public-spirited public servants who work extremely hard to try to deliver services to their clients. The Government have recognised the considerable problems with Swindon social services over the years, and there has been Government intervention.
	Thanks to 1 million from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the borough council was able to bring in consultancy services from Kent county council, one of the better social services departments in the country. Under its tutelage and with a great deal of engagement by the borough council, there have been real improvements in Swindon social services. I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved, particularly to the social workers on the front line, who have a difficult and often thankless job. I know from my own experience how hard they work and how deeply they care about the people they serve, and I pay tribute to them.
	There are, however, still huge problems with social services. We cannot run away from them. Every week I see examples in my caseload. Recently, I had a case of a young woman with pronounced suicidal tendencies who had been made known to Swindon social services over many months. She had not had a proper assessment and she was getting no support. One afternoon recently she threatened to commit suicide. Her mother was desperate. She rang social services, but she could get no one to come out.
	In the end, the situation was so desperate that the police had to go to the house and spend six to eight hours with the young woman to ensure that she did not harm herself. All the time the police were there doing that jobI pay tribute to them in this caseI was on the phone, trying to get social services to engage with the case. Having spent most of the day on it, it was only at about 6.30 pm that we got a duty officer to come out and take charge. That was an extreme case, but there are other cases that I see every week, showing how far social services have to go.
	On the other hand, Swindon primary care trust is widely recognised to be one of the best in the country. It is an exceptional team led by Jan Stubbings, with high quality management throughout the primary care trust. It is discussing its future, a matter to which I shall return at the end of my remarks. We have the opportunity to combine an operation that desperately needs better managerial support and continuing reform with an organisation that has already proved its worth.
	In a bold and inspired move, Swindon borough council has appointed the chief executive of the PCT to spend four days a week running Swindon social services. It is early days, but it seems to be working extremely well. She still spends one day a week running the primary care trust, but because of the quality of the team that she has built up there is no dilution, as far as anyone can see, in the quality of the management of the primary care trust. The gains from integrating those caring services are potentially enormous. The Government have begun to recognise thatthe recent White Paper on health suggests that they do, but we must move fast.
	I conclude my remarks by drawing attention to dementia care. We know that the numbers of people suffering from dementia are growing all the time. As people live longer, that is increasingly likely to affect many people in the United Kingdom. It is extremely difficult for the statutory agencies to deal with the problem. Symptoms are often not recognised early on. Typically, long-standing partners shoulder a huge burden of care, particularly in the early stages of dementia. Statutory agencies often come in quite late. There is often a great deal of confusion, which is difficult to resolve, about who should take responsibility for the care. For example, in the local hospital there are still a large number of delayed discharges, which are due to people suffering from dementia not being able to go anywhere. When elderly people are unable to look after their partners, it creates huge problems for hospital staff. As everybody knows, people with dementia need a lot of care and attention, because they go wandering, which takes up an awful lot of hospital staff's time. When I visited the hospital last month, staff told me that managing the day-to-day routine of people with dementia is still a considerable problem. People in the early stages of dementia should not really be in hospital, but there is nowhere else for them to go.
	Integrating caring services could do a great deal to provide more effective care for people with dementia, and it would also have wider benefits at the boundaries between the various caring agencies, which are often quite diffuse. I hope that the Government will move quickly to implement the recommendations, because there are huge gains to be had, and I also hope that they will examine the opportunity to make Swindon a pilot for such integrated services.
	In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on to Health Ministers the point that the huge gain offered by such integration can be achieved only if Swindon PCT remains as a stand-alone PCT and is not integrated with some of the other potential partner PCTs, which the strategic health authority is currently advocating. I hope that my hon. Friend will carry forward the message that Swindon should have a stand-alone PCT and the rapid integration of social services.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who spoke passionately and wisely about the care of vulnerable people and held the attention of the whole House.
	In the past two years alone, the police cautioned 807 people for taking or possessing indecent photographs of childrenthe majority of the cautions were issued for taking indecent photographs. Given the nature of paedophiles and their tendency to reoffend, it is a fair assumption that some, if not many, of those 807 people went on to commit further offences, and a   caution, rather than a public trial, helps them to do so.
	We all know that those offences destroy the lives of our innocent young children. I put it to the House that if only one of those offenders, whom my constituents and, I guess, your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider to be pervertsthey have admitted the offencegoes on to reoffend, the use of the caution for paedophile activity is wrong and should be stopped. Cautions should be used only where, first, the offence, which must be admitted in full by the criminal, has only minor consequences for either individuals or society at large, and, secondly, offenders are unlikely to reoffend after they have been pulled up by the caution. It is as plain as the nose on my face that neither of those tests is met in the case of paedophile activityI can see my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) nodding about how plain the nose on my face is. Instead of leaving it to the decision of an individual police officer, we should stop the use of cautions for paedophile activity in all but truly exceptional cases, and then only on the advice of the chief constable.
	Once paedophiles are caught, they should be put through the courts, which would ensure that the public are aware of their proclivities. That would give us a better chance of defending our innocent children by keeping on eye on those offenders.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the subject was debated in this place, the argument was advanced that it is sometimes easier to secure a confession, and therefore to impose a caution, than it is to secure a conviction? It is therefore sometimes possible to pin down someone as an offender by offering a caution, when they might escape conviction before the courts.

Bob Spink: I recall that debate, and that is the only half-decent argument against taking such people to a full trial, but the offence and its consequences are so serious that I believe that a trial is essential in almost all cases. I am surprised that the use of cautions for that offence has increased almost tenfold over the past three years.
	Today, I have tabled new clause 1 to the Police and Justice Bill, which is titled, Protection of children: prohibition of police and conditional cautions. I hope that it ensures that paedophiles get the justice they deserve and that our children get the protection they deserve. I hope that hon. Members support my new clause, which will allow us further to debate the issue and let individual police officers know that this House takes the matter very seriously.

David Heath: I shall make two brief observations. First, people who are issued with cautions are entered on to the sex offenders register, which is an important factor. Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that not nearly enough resources were applied to Operation Ore in order to pick up the large number of suspected cases of paedophilia that emerged from it. If the resources had been put in, I am sure that a more effective policing job could have been done.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman, who is speaking for the Liberal Democrats today, makes an excellent point.
	We all value our children, and that view should not stop or be varied in the case of the unborn child. Changing technologyin particular, 4D imaging technologyhas drawn greater attention to the true and horrendous consequences of the abortion of a child at 24 weeks. That has raised public and political awareness of the issue of the timing of abortions, which came to a head last year in the general election campaign, when all three party leaders made a formal pledge that this House should readdress the legislation on the timing of abortion. Since then, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his pledgehe is the only one of those three party leaders who is still in office. I hope that all three parties honour what their party leaders said to the public.
	The Leader of the House of Commons wrote to the Science and Technology Committee on 13 March in the following terms:
	You propose, on behalf of the Science  Technology Committee, and following discussion with the Lords Science  Technology Committee, that the time may be right for the establishment of a Joint Committee on time limits for abortions.
	I am in no doubt about the importance of this issue, nor of the fact that . . . scientific, medical and social changes have taken place since Parliament was last asked to come to a decision on these issues in 1990. The Government . . . have no plans to change the law on abortion.
	The Leader of the House did not recommend the formation of a committee to examine the matter.
	I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the public view and the changing awareness of the consequences of abortion at 24 weeks and will enable, even if it is through a private Member's Bill, the issue to be debated again at the latest in the next Session of Parliament. I accept that it is a matter of conscience and is not a matter for direct Government legislation, but it needs a push, and I hope that the Prime Minister will provide ithe is an honourable man, so I am sure he will.
	I will be surprised if my hon. Friends do not address the issue of police force mergers. The vast majority of people in Essex adamantly oppose the ending of the Essex constabulary. Objectors in Essex include the county council, the 12 district or borough councils and 15 of the 17 Essex Members of Parliament, some of whom are on these Benches with me today. There is clearly an overwhelming majority among those who have been democratically elected to represent the people against the merger of Essex police.
	The people of Essex are equally overwhelmingly opposed to this ill-considered merger. The Home Secretary has not made the case for the merger. He has shown by his decision last week that he is failing, and the Government are failing, to listen to the people. We as Conservatives found out in 1997 what happens when the Government fail to listen to the people. I hope that he will change his mind. I also hope that he can explain the inconsistency with Hampshire and Kent, which are highly comparable with the Essex police force in terms of size, operation and nature but have been allowed to remain a stand-alone force while Essex is being merged. Policing in the UK is by the consent of the people. As Lord Hanningfield said in his letter of 20 March,
	it is crucial that the wishes of the people are heard and are respected.
	This ill-considered proposal would lead to higher costs and higher council tax; dangerous centralisation of police control in future, or at least the risk of that; loss of local understanding and responsiveness; and loss of local control. The Home Secretary must know that Conservative Members will continue to fight him on this. I thank Lord Hanningfield and Essex county councillors for leading us in this worthy battle.
	Overdevelopment is a major problem, particularly in the south-east. The public are deeply concerned about the fact that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to concrete over our green spaces, as well as brownfield sites, without providing the necessary infrastructure to support such increased development. The chief constable of Essex has stated that that overdevelopment, if not checked, could add up to 30 per cent. to crime over the next five to seven years. This is being driven by the ODPM and is giving a terrible headache to local councillors on planning committees who are doing their best to fight off the demand for ever more houses and the destruction of our green spaces. As the Basildon Evening Echo editorial sagely said,
	Too many homes can kill a town.
	Overdevelopment is a particular problem for Castle Point. It threatens our green land and quality of life and will make much worse the already unacceptable congestion and further overburden our infrastructure.
	There is an additional problemnot a new one, sadlyin Castle Point: the widespread and justified concern about a lack of transparency in planning. The public have lost confidence as a result of that. A company called Hickfort is seeking to develop 400 acres of our green belt in Castle Point. I do not want to be unfair to Hickfort and will not say today anything that I would not repeat outside this Chamber. However, there seems to have been an attempt to mislead, to some extent, landowners and the public on its proposals. I must thank the Yellow Advertiser and the Evening Echo for their coverage of this. For instance, the Evening Echo's front page is starkly headlined, Land Grab. Hickfort seems to have made exaggerated claims of support and advice by the ODPM, Thames Gateway and the head of Castle Point borough council. Its letter of 12 December last year states:
	We have held preliminary meetings with representatives of some very influential organisations that oversee the delivery of new homes and economic growth in the Thames Gateway region. Specifically, Thames Gateway-South Essex, GO East, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Head of Castle Point Council . . . We have been recommended to . . . submit a scheme.
	I have written to Hickfort but have had no reply. I have written to all those bodies, each of which denies ever having made such a recommendation. Indeed, they would not do so, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My investigations on behalf of deeply concerned residents show that Hickfort's letter to residents is untrue. Moreover, Hickfort has refused to engage with me in any way whatsoever, not even to answer the various letters that I have sent over recent months so that I can protect the interests of my constituents. That creates a lack of transparency, which must give rise to concern in local people's minds. My own position as a Member of Parliament continues to be threatened by vested interests, which I believe are driven by these issues. Several national newspapers and the Press Association have contacted me this week about that threat to my position. I can only quote my letter to all residents last week:
	I reject the old fashioned, bickering politics. I just want to get on with the job . . . simply doing what is right . . . I work for you
	the people
	not for 'The Party' or vested interests.
	That will remain the case.

David Taylor: Let me first pick up one or two points from earlier speakers. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was quick to cite the band D council tax statistic that is so often bandied aroundno pun intended. It is a particularly misleading statistic, because better-off areas tend to have more properties in higher bands than D, therefore the median property would be a band C or D. A far better measure is council tax per dwelling, not at band D level. It is not surprising if Conservative areas have a lower band D council tax.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that it was unknown for there to be a Budget prior to an election that was not a come-on to the electorateI paraphrase a little. I point him to the example of the Budget by Roy Jenkins in which, despite great pressure from his Labour colleagues, he was very abstemious in that regard and Labour lost the ensuing election. I do not know whether the two facts are linked.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned abortion. Wide cross-party support has been given to an early-day motion asking for a lower limit of 20 weeks, in some cases 18 weeks, or in my view, 16 weeks. He also discussed the merging of police forces in Essex. We have a similar situation in the east midlands, where there is no support for an east midlands-wide force but that seems to be our fate.
	I have the privilege of representing the constituency of North-West Leicestershire, which is, and has been for centuries, a mining and mineral seat. Unfortunately, the mining has now disappeared but it is still very much a constituency where the extraction of roadstone and building materials is an important part of the local economy. In the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised concerns about the roadstone coating industry. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was good enough to say in her winding-up speech that she had been riveted by it and that it had been the highlight of her parliamentary year. Again, I paraphrase a little.
	The builders' materials industry and construction products firms located in North-West Leicestershire have some problems. Like every other Member of Parliament, I visit employment bases in my area as frequently as I can, and I am in regular contact with them. Those firms have had a mixed reaction to last week's Budget. They point out that a good number of firms are facing the triple problem of high energy prices, participation in the emissions trading scheme, and an increasing climate change levy, which they are not sure will help companies to become more energy efficient. They are happy about working within the climate change agreements but suggest that it would be more effective to have more firmly enforced climate change agreements, which imposed penalties, instead of a levy that is recycled back into the broader industry.
	Some of the measures in the Budget that assist firms in my area and other parts of the country are welcome. I am pleased that our Government remain committed to reducing red tape and speeding up the planning system. However, we must wait and see whether the words, which we have heard beforenot only from our Government; it is a difficult goalabout reduction of red tape will be followed by effective action.
	The fact that there is no significant increase in other businesses taxes has been met with relief. However, the Government need to acknowledge the time required by industry in North-West Leicestershire to absorb past tax increases. I look forward to the Chancellor's setting a clear programme for further easing the tax burden on business rather than simply saying that he is not making it worse.
	The Budget had an environmental theme. As someone who was active in environmental pressure groups even before I joined the Labour party, I welcome that and I am pleased that the environment is a Government priority. However, the construction products industry in North-West Leicestershire believes that the measures introduced have fallen short of what is possible. There are some genuine opportunities to provide financial incentives to improve energy efficiency, which would benefit firms in my area. Although plans to ensure that an additional 250,000 homes are properly insulated and the 50 million extra funding for micro-generation are welcome, they are relatively modest measures given the scale of what needs to be achieved. The industry and I would like a clear, long-term strategy for making existing building stock more energy efficient.

David Heath: As a fellow Member for a mining and quarrying constituency, may I bring the hon. Gentleman back to aggregates? Has his constituency experienced the benefits of the aggregates levy in dealing with the after-effects or continuing effects of quarrying? Is he as alarmed as we are in Somerset at any prospect of the proceeds of that levy being nationalised and distributed throughout the country rather than in those areas that are directly affected by quarrying?

David Taylor: Yes, the aggregates levy has made a significant impact on the numerous quarries in North-West Leicestershire. I remember being part of a lobby to the Financial Secretary at its inception, but I have to say that its benefits have been limited and its downside even more significant than was feared when it was introduced.
	I want to consider ways in which carbon emissions from existing housing stock can be reduced more rapidly. The 2003 energy White Paper stated that it placed energy efficiency at the heart of UK energy policy and sustainability. The sharp rise in energy costs for domestic consumers and industry in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere in the past year serves to underline the economic as well as environmental benefits of improved energy efficiency.
	The construction products industry is a major user of energy in producing and supplying its goods. It continues to invest heavily in measures to improve energy efficiency and generally enhance environmental performance, as I know from my visits to the numerous sites in my area. The industry has a critical role to play in increasing the energy efficiency of other parts of the UK economy.
	Domestic households are responsible for 30 per cent. of total UK energy use. That is the equivalent of approximately 40 million tonnes of carbon a year. Of that, 82 per cent. is used on heating and hot water. More thermally efficient heating systems and better insulated homes can substantially cut those emissions and relieve the pressure on sections of the economy and society that are being asked to bear the burden of reducing carbon emissions.

David Drew: It is a pleasure to intervene on my hon. Friend and I agree with him about domestic premises. However, does he also agree that it is especially riling that many public buildings are unnecessarily hot? I am sure that that has much to do with those of us who work in them getting ill because when we go outside, we immediately feel the worst of the cold. If the heating in public buildings could be turned down by 5o or even 10o, I am sure that we would save an enormous amount of energy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

David Taylor: Yes. If one drives past the Palace of Westminster in the small hours of the morning, it is disappointing to see the extent of the lighting on large parts of the parliamentary estate. Surely we should do more about heating and lighting.
	The construction products industry welcomes the wide variety of measures that the Government have introduced in the past seven years to help household energy efficiency and to keep homes warm. The decent homes target has begun to deliver significant improvements in energy efficiency in the social housing sector, and the commitment to the warm front programme has helped many vulnerable private sector households.
	Although the current mix of policy measures is lifting many households out of fuel poverty, it does not yet deliver the significant change in the required related housing investment. That must happen if the Government are to secure their target of a reduction of 5 million tonnes of carbon in household emissions in 2010.
	The disappointing reduction so far is due to two factors. First, many existing programmes have been primarily directed at lower income households to tackle fuel poverty. I understand and endorse that. Secondly, the greatest environmental problems are emissions from poorly insulated, inefficiently heated and, typically, larger homes. I occupy a similar home. Indeed, such dwellings are often occupied by higher income households for whom energy costs are a small proportion of their expenditure. How do we provide incentives to that large group of people to tackle the energy inefficiency of their homes?
	The Government should develop a much more comprehensive strategy for curbing emissions by all households. They should do that by building on the existing programme, which is already tackling fuel poverty. Without a clear strategy and a well resourced approach, industry will continue to bear the brunt of the necessary reductions to deliver the Kyoto and other targets. The domestic and transport sectors must play a bigger part. In all three cases, there will be a beneficial effect for firms such as the construction products industry in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere, which are in the engine room of the economy. They are pleased to be there but believe that they bear more than their fair share of that target burden.

Patrick McLoughlin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). He was right to say that there is almost no support for combining the police forces in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. I hope that he can influence the Home Secretary, who seems intent on ignoring all local opinion and pressing ahead with those proposals. They were not mentioned just over 12 months ago, when the Government were re-elected.
	The Government are becoming notorious for their broken promises, on road congestion, climate change, carbon emissions, pensions, the Child Support Agency, dentists and so on. Indeed, all hon. Members can draw up a list; the Post Office was mentioned earlier. Last year, the Government picked up one of the policies that the Opposition were pursuing with some vigour to reduce council tax for pensioners by 500. The Government tried to trump us and introduced a 200 reduction for pensioners, but only for a year. They did not tell anyone at the time that it was going to be for only one year. I got a leaflet in my flat in London last weekend from the leader of the Labour group in Lambeth council. The leaflet said:
	We will:
	Press the Government to provide more help for pensioners to pay their council tax bills.
	It is a pity that they did not try to influence the Chancellor before he made his Budget speech.
	The main reason for my speech today is that I want to talk about some specific issues that are important to my constituency and to the people of West Derbyshire. For some years, I have been pressing the Government to resurface the A50, which is a very heavily used concrete road that links the M1 and the M6. I was delighted when, in April 2003, I received a letter from the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), saying:
	I am sure that you will be pleased that the A50 Doveridge Bypass has been given a high priority and, subject to the availability of funds, is programmed for the period 2004/5
	for resurfacing. I then got a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport to confirm what the Minister had said. In a letter dated 22 July 2004, he said:
	There are four sections of concrete road along the A50 Stoke to Derby link road. Resurfacing of the Doveridge Bypass could be done in financial year 2006/07
	once finalised budget decisions have been taken.
	Hon. Members can therefore imagine my sorrow, and that of all those who are affected by this very noisy road, when I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in June 2005, in which he says:
	I am sorry that the Highways Agency is not able to take forward this resurfacing work over the next three years. Resource funding for transport came under particular pressure following the last spending review. Following detailed scrutiny of departmental and the Highways Agency's budgets, Ministers
	in the past, these decisions have been taken by the Highways Agency
	agreed that the resurfacing of concrete roads ahead of maintenance need, for noise reasons, would not be allocated funding.
	So there we have it. It was not the Highways Agency but Ministers who decided that the resurfacing would not happen, and I want to hold the Government to account. For two and a half years, we had promises that it was going to happen, and that we would get the benefit of the road resurfacing. Then, lo and behold, mysteriously, just after the general election, we were told that the promises that were made before the general election no longer held any weight. That is very disappointing to my constituents, and to all the people in Doveridge and the surrounding area. It is not only Doveridge that is affected.
	I have the honour to represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. The Peak district attracts more than 20 million visitors each year. It is known as the lungs of England, and is within an hour's drive of 60 per cent. of the UK population. One of the biggest issues in the area is that of quarrying. A few months ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) came up to look at a problem at Backdale quarry, and he was very sympathetic to the case that the Peak park was making that a stop notice should be served on that development. Indeed, he encouraged and helped the Peak park along the way.
	So it was with great disappointment that I heard yesterday that a public inquiry into the issue, which had already been postponed once, has been cancelled just a few weeks before it was due to start. I wonder why that particular public inquiry would be cancelled at short notice. Unfortunately, it is true to say that this comes after the Deputy Prime Minister declared that the stop order preventing quarrying at Longstone Edge was null and void. The park authority had issued the stop order to the quarry firm in January. The decision to overturn the stop order comes after a similar order by a local authority imposed on a company in Wales was thrown out by a judge.
	The people in the Calver area have been waiting for a determination from this public inquiry for quite some time, and it is very disappointing that yet again the stop order has been overturned. Between 2003 and December 2005, some 573,000 tonnes of limestone were quarried in Backdale. Only 11,500 tonnes from that extraction were for fluorspar, which is what is allowed to be extracted under the present regulations. That is why the inquiry was due to take place, but it has been cancelled yet again. This is causing great disquiet throughout the Peak district. It is time for a serious re-evaluation of this case, so that lessons can be learned for other parts of the country.
	We have been assured for the past 12 months or so that the single farm payments would be made on time. Indeed, the latest edition of Farming Link from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states:
	Full payments on track for farmers,
	and that those payments will be made by the end of March. I believe that the end of March is tomorrow, and I do not think that that target will be met. Even the Government now accept that there is no chance of that happening.
	This is causing devastating problems for the rural economy. The payments have been made in Wales and Scotland, but because of the particularly complicated system introduced by the Secretary of State, England is suffering from an almost complete computer failure and farmers are not going to get the money that they were expecting. This is causing serious concern in the rural areas of my constituency. This morning, I spoke to a young farmer from Ashbourne, Mr. Cotterell, who told me that the Department was full of chaos and confusion. That attitude towards DEFRA is now recognised throughout the agriculture industry.

David Heath: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is raising this issue, which is important for many rural areas, including my own. Does he agree that there was always an argument for making an interim payment to farmers before detailed calculations were made? In the light of the debacle at the Rural Payments Agency, that argument is now overwhelming. Those payments must be made if businesses are to survive.

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. All of us who represent farming constituencies or rural areas understand the problems that this is causing.
	The Government's apparent disregard for the rural economy is the most dispiriting thing for my constituents. I have seen many thousands of farmers, and they also want to know when the Government are going to take some action on bovine tuberculosis. The Government's record is one of promises of action, followed by inaction. Yet another consultation will not inspire the confidence that they have the will to tackle the disease effectively. Meanwhile, the disease is spreading. The number of cattle slaughtered in Derbyshire under the TB measures rose from 57 in 1998 to 608 in 2005. The number of new confirmed bovine TB herd incidents increased from seven in 1998 to 66 in 2005. The cost to the taxpayer nationally has increased from 17 million in 1997 to more than 90 million in 200405. The Government have spent eight years delaying what I accept are difficult decisions. Unless they make those decisions soon, however, badgers, cattle and farmers will continue to suffer.
	There is genuine concern in the rural economy about the attitude of the Government to agriculture, and about the attitude of the Secretary of State to the farmers whose interests she is supposed to look after. I have had correspondence from Mrs. Pilkington, who farms in Hartington, and asks, Where is the money? The shambles that is the Rural Payments Agency is a disgrace. What makes it more of a disgrace is that the Government have been warned consistently by Committees of the House that there was a problem. Not long ago, the Minister responsible dismissed the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and said that everything was fine. Sadly, we now know the truth, and it is not fine.

David Taylor: As one of the two rapporteurs on this issue from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to exempt from his sweeping condemnation of the Rural Payments Agency the middling and ordinary staff who are working their hardest under the most difficult of circumstances, with a computer system that fails to deliver? They are not responsible for this problem.

Patrick McLoughlin: I totally accept that point. I attended the debate about those problems in Westminster Hall, which the hon. Gentleman also attended, and I acknowledge the work that he has done and the time that he has spent considering this matter. I am not blaming the staff, but I am blaming the management, and obviously, the Secretary of State has blamed the management, because she sacked the chief executive. It seems that the responsibility ends with the chief executive, and not with the Ministers who were responsible, I am afraid, for ignoring the advice given by this House and instead listening to officials. There is confusion about what the two ends of the Department are up to. As I have said, many farmers have contacted me, including one, Mr. Cotterell, who said that the trouble is that there is a 31 March deadline for farm waste grants, and unless he can have a confirmed payment from the Rural Payments Agency, he cannot apply for the other grant. It seems that neither of the two sections in the Department knows what the other is doing.
	Those are some of the problems that my constituents are facing as a result of Government promises. When the time came for road resurfacing to happen, a letter arrived saying that it had been reviewed, it was not affordable and it was not going to go ahead. In the Rural Payments Agency, there is chaos. Bovine TB and other issues affecting my constituents leave them frustrated. They believe that the Government do not care about the rural environment, and if they did care, they lost interest a long time ago. Those serious problems face many ordinary people in my constituency, and I hope that the Government take measures to put them right in the not-too-distant future.

Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip, and I certainly endorse his remarks about the failure of the Government to take appropriate care of and interest in the rural economy. I think that I exempt the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) from that. The problem is that he does not have sufficient clout in his Department, and his Department does not have sufficient clout within the Government, to ensure that the needs of the rural economy are properly taken care of.
	The contributions this afternoon, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), have demonstrated the value of this kind of debate. It is a great pity that there are only three such debates a year. The Deputy Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) are responsible for that issue, unlike most of the issues raised in this debate. May I suggest to them that we should repeat this kind of debate whenever the business of the House collapses? If the business of the House collapses at six o'clock, and we are not due to finish until 10, we should have a debate of this kind, in which Members who perhaps have not been called at Question Time and have not had the opportunity to have a Westminster Hall debate or to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker or the other Deputy Speakers, could raise matters. There could be a member of the Government on the Front Bench taking note, perhaps with messages sent back to the appropriate Departments, or with the Departments watching the debate on television, so that they can send notes to the member of the Government on the Front Bench, who can be inspired to respond to the issues that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House think are important on that day. It is far better to deal with these issues immediately than to save them up until the end of term or to wait in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In making that recommendation, may I also apologise to the Deputy Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in case I am unable to attend for the wind-ups of this debate? I hope that I shall be able to attend, but, obviously, it depends on the duration of the debate, and I have business elsewhere later.
	First, I want to follow up an issue that I raised in business questions, and which I believe that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised in an earlier business questions: who takes responsibility for the health service? The Leader of the House responded in business questions today that responsibility for the health service is divided between the Secretary of State and local managers. He said rightly that the Secretary of State cannot possibly take responsibility for every individual decision of local managers up and down the country. I would accept that, were it not for the fact that the Secretary of State appoints the people who appoint those local managers, instead of the local managers being answerable locally. Indeed, the Secretary of State intervenes at almost every conceivable stage in the local management of the health service, by setting targets, trying to abolish postcode prescribing, raising salaries, imposing the European working time directive and a range of other methods, which make it much more difficult for local managers to manage their health service in a way that is acceptable to local people.
	As one might expect, I want to give as an example what has happened on the Isle of Wight in recent years. Shortly after I was elected, I was presented with a document that set out the needs of the island's health economy for more money. It is generally accepted that we are fortunate to have St. Mary's hospital on the Isle of Wight, largely owing to the pressing and hard work of my predecessor, Barry Field, and of course to a Conservative Government who agreed to its rebuilding. It is a district general hospital that serves between a third and a half of the population normally served by a district general hospital, and is funded accordingly.
	It is understood that living on an island has certain disadvantages, although they are hugely outweighed by the advantages, but one of those disadvantages is that not all services are available as easily as one might expect. However, the Government have been pouring on to my local hospital additional responsibilities that do not necessarily result in better patient care. The hospital already had other responsibilities, and it takes a certain number of people to man a maternity unit regardless of the number of births with which it deals. We cannot have a hospital, or an island, without a maternity unitwe cannot expect a population to survive without one. It is largely because of our need for a maternity unit that we still have the hospital, because of the other services attached.
	However, the need for a maternity unit cannot be measured simply by the number of births. It must be measured more in terms of the basic need to man the unit, and I fear that the system that allocates resources between hospitals does not take account of that basic need. Another example is an accident and emergency unit which requires a consultant to be available at all times. Owing to the imposition of the European working time directive on my local hospital, we need to employ more consultants, without more resources, in order to provide that unit.
	The position has been recognised for a long time by my local health managers. For months, indeed years, I have been saying to them, Come on, we must make the case for more resources to the Government. They have put me off and put me off, on a number of occasions. For what they consider to be good reasons, they have said, We are going to try a different approach. We are going to try to economise, try to introduce efficiency savings, try to displace some services to the mainland, and try to amalgamate. I am pleased to say that the amalgamation was agreed earlier this week, between the primary care trust and the hospital trust. Let me say for the benefit of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), although he is no longer in the Chamber, that the new set-up will take on adult social services in the fullness of time.
	That shows that such things can be done. It seems to me, though, that managers in the health serviceand, indeed, chairmen and directorshave received the message that it is inappropriate to make representations through a Member of Parliament for changes in funding arrangements. That is what I understand from what I have been told. There appears to be no appetitecertainly there has been no appetite in the strategic health authority or the Department of Healthfor difficult messages conveyed by local managers through their Members of Parliament. Managers may press them through the bureaucracy of the national health service, but if they go through Members of Parliament they are likely to have their heads chopped off.
	I consider that unacceptable. Sir Ian Carruthers, who was chief executive of my strategic health authority and that of Dorset and Somerset, has now been elevated to the post of acting chief executive of the national health service, but I am assured by the new acting chief executive of Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA, Eileen Spiller, that there is no such imposition on local managers. She says that they are free to give evidence to Members of Parliament, which they may use in the House and elsewhere, on how the allocation system, for instance, should be changed. It has not happened, though. The evidence is there, and can be obtained. Certainly it could be obtained five years ago, so there is no reason why it cannot be updated and obtained now. It does not seem to be acceptable, however, for it to be produced.
	We hear that in the current year 200 staff have been lost to St Mary's hospital and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust. Today, I think for the first time, it has been admitted by officials of the trust that no further cuts can be entertained without a significant reduction in the quality of patient care available on the island. That information was on the Isle of Wight radio website today. I have concluded that it was possible for the trust officials to say that partly because they have made as many cuts as they can, but partly because Sir Ian Carruthers has been moved to a higher post. The acting chief executive of Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA assures me that bad news may be presented by senior health service managers.
	There are, of course, bits of bad news that I too present from time to time, and I thank those who provide me with that information. An example of bad news has been, in the past, the lack of NHS dentists on the Isle of Wight. I must thank the Minister of State, Department of Healththe hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)first for admitting that it was unacceptable for people to have to cross the Solent to find NHS dentists, secondly for coming to the island and ensuring that real efforts were made to appoint more of them, and thirdly for allowing, or perhaps ensuring, the appointment of 14 more of them over the past 12 months. That is excellent. The only problem is that the number of people who are no longer registered with NHS dentists has not fallen over those 12 months but risen, because more and more dentists are leaving the NHS.
	Taken together, the 24,000 people who have registered their need for NHS dentists on the Isle of Wight and the 36,000 or so who are already on NHS dentists' lists make up only half the population of my constituency. So half the population have no prospect of securing NHS dentists, 30,000-odd have NHS dentists, and, we are told, 24,000 are likely to obtain NHS dentistsnot while those 14 are being appointed, not within 12 months of their being appointed, not, in fact, until two years have elapsed since their appointment.
	That is an entirely unsatisfactory level of service to my constituents. It reflects very badly on the Prime Minister that he made a promise back in 1998 or 1999 on which he could not deliver. He should have checked. He made a promise that by the end of 2001, everyone would be able to have access to an NHS dentist. He could not deliver on the promise, and he should have known that when he made it. It was a promise made either flippantly or with malice, to mislead. I am sure that it could not have been the latter, and it reflects ill on the Prime Minister if he made it in other circumstances.
	The most damaging cut, potentially, that my NHS trust has made over the past 12 months is the withdrawal of payment of fares to people who need radiotherapy. The fares were paid to enable them to cross the Solent and attend a hospital in Southampton. The health service estimated the saving at a meagre 38,000, which could have made the difference between people undergoing radiotherapy and not being able to afford it.
	I am pleased to say that Isle of Wight councilwhich, as I said earlier, is now under Conservative controlstepped in, and provided money to meet the shortfall. It really is disgraceful, however, that in days when Ministers talk of equal access to NHS services, those who are poorest cannot have access because they cannot afford it. It really is disgraceful that pensioners cannot have access to radiotherapy services. It is disgraceful that they cannot be accompanied by their husbands or wives when they attend for such services, because they cannot afford the journey.
	The more the health service is centralised and, indeed, the more choice the Government give patientsI accept that that is a good thingthe more people will fail to gain access to the services that they want or need. I believe that the Government should address that issue before appointing new health service bureaucrats and setting up new health service quangos.
	I am very proud of the work that the Isle of Wight council has done, not only in stepping in to fill that breach, but in several other areas. I do not often boast about my local authorityI did not have the opportunity to do so until May last yearbut, to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), I went to the trouble of helping the Conservatives get elected, so I am entitled to boast about them. They inherited a near to failing local authority with a near to failing education system

Nicholas Soames: Liberal Democrats!

Andrew Turner: It was indeed run by the Liberal Democrats, who led the Isle of Wight council for more than 20 years. My colleagues on the council, led by Councillor Andy Sutton, have taken determined steps to improve the quality of service, not only for 12 months but for the next four years. I congratulate them warmly on what they have achieved.
	First, my colleagues have put considerably more resources into education and adult care. Secondly, they have paid the cost of cross-Solent travel for many elderly patients. Thirdly, they have extended the Government's scheme for free off-peak public transport for pensioners, so that now the over-65s on the Isle of Wight can travel by train or bus anywhere on the island free of charge at any hour of the day or night. Fourthly, they have introduced a 50p standard bus fare for anyone under the age of 19, which is a great improvement on the 2.50 or so that it cost until recently to travel from Newport to Shanklin.
	That 50p bus fare will not only transform the access that young people have to schools, colleges and recreational facilities, but will save lives. We have a sad record of too many young people dying on our roads. I congratulate my local bus company, Southern Vectis, which is introducing buses that run until 4 am on Fridays and Saturdays between Newport and the other main towns, so that young people can now travel by bus late at night. That will get them out of the habit of sharing cars late at night. There are few things more dangerous than several young men sharing a car, except possibly several young men and young women sharing a car.
	Finally, the council has introduced an all-island 50 parking permit that entitles islanders to park anywhere on the island at any time of the year. That is  a huge achievement and I congratulate all 36 Conservative councillors, especially Councillor Andy Sutton, on their first 12 months. As I told the Minister when I attended a meeting with him and Councillor Sutton, I did not believe that things could be turned round as quickly as they have been. There was a mountain to be climbed on the Isle of Wight. We are still in the foothills of that mountain, but in the past the leaders of the council displayed no vision, hope or direction. At least now the leader of the council has his eyes fixed firmly on the summit of that mountain, and we are climbing out of the foothills.

John Randall: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, whichas my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) saidis a useful opportunity to make a wide-ranging speech. Perhaps there might be opportunities to increase the number of such debates.
	I also wish to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about a debate on foreign affairs. We could discuss not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but other matters. This week is the seventh anniversary of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Without repeating the arguments about whether that was right or wrong, that part of the world has largely been forgotten. Although talks are taking place to establish the final status of Kosovo, it is a shame that we have not really had the opportunity to discuss the present situation. Thanks to Mr. Speaker, I managed to obtain a debate in Westminster Hall recently, but I was not able to go over the subject fully and other people did not have the opportunity to join in.
	I make a plea to Ministers, right hon. and hon. Members and the media to visit Kosovo and see what is happening. The pendulum has swung the other way and an apartheid system is operating, with the few Serbs remaining living in small, enclosed areas that have to be guarded by troops. Even more worrying is the complete destruction of the centuries-old culture, with the razing of churches, monasteries, graveyards and cemeteries, some of which have been turned into car parks and some into football pitches, seemingly in an attempt to try to deny the history and culture of the area. Those are difficult issues, but we do not do the peace of Europe a service by trying to ignore them.
	One of the most pressing problems for my constituency, as for many others, is the health service. The problems of gaining access to NHS dentistry have already been mentioned, and Uxbridge has exactly the same experiences. More worryingly, Hillingdon primary care trust has one of the largest deficits in the country. I have to say that I was not impressed when the previous chief executive fell on his sword and a part-timer was appointed, who was at the same time the chief executive for Harrowwhich had its own problemsand had to split his time between the two. That has now been resolved and we have another full-time chief executive, but the problems continue.
	I am not surprised at some of the goings on, because I have taken a great interest in the fiasco of the Paddington health campus, on which millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been wasted. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will look into that and I do not wish to prejudge their findings, but it is a matter of record that the Department of Health and the strategic health authority obstinately refused to accept that their vision was unworkable and unaffordable. In the meantime, huge amounts of money were wasted, and that is just one example in which I have personally become involved. When I think of all the money that was spent on consultants and so on, I am not entirely surprised to learn of the deficits around the country in health services. It is not that the Government have not put the money in: it is how it is used and, in many cases, wasted.
	Another problem to the north of my constituency, but which affects my constituents directly, is the threat of withdrawal of cancer services from Mount Vernon hospital. Like Harefield hospital, Mount Vernon is world renowned and much loved, but it is proposed to send people to Hatfield for treatment, even though the site for the Hatfield hospital has not yet been identified or planning consent obtained. It is obvious that the travelling time will be a huge problem for anyone suffering from cancer and needing radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

Theresa May: The concern about the closure of cancer services at Mount Vernon hospital to which my hon. Friend refers is shared by those of my constituents who are asked to go there for treatment. Indeed, I have received a number of letters expressing worry about the proposal.

John Randall: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which emphasises the problem that exists. Those responsible for these decisions seem not to understand the real needs of our constituents.
	A perennial problem that is unfortunately on the minds of most of my constituents is the potential expansion of Heathrow through the creation of a third runway. I am delighted to say that the political parties in Hillingdon and the various other local boroughs are still united on this issue. My concern is that the Government are not taking aviation emissions seriously, although I have to say that that would probably be true of any Government at the moment. I was interested to hear on the Today programme this morning that the Conservative party policy group is taking this issue seriously. I hope to make my contribution to the debate, to ensure that people understand just how serious an issue this is. We really must have cross-party consensus on it, because the decisions that have to be taken will not be universally popular. The Government and the political parties have got to take a real lead.
	Heathrow does of course bring benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a major polluter. Another effect locally is that it brings various people into this country who are seeking asylum, and we accept that responsibility. Some two years ago, the London borough of Hillingdon was asked to take responsibility for unaccompanied child asylum seekers. As a result of the Hillingdon judgment, Hillingdon has financial responsibility for such people up to the age of 25. Of course, that imposes a great financial burden on the local authority, which has, it is true, been recompensed through national Government resources. We accept the situation, which is the result of our geographical position, and we are prepared to take on such responsibility, but we do not think it fair for council tax payers' bills to be increased as a result.
	Two years ago, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills were not providing enough money to enable us to deal with this issue. The Home Office quickly came up with the goods after representations were made by a cross-party delegation. Eventually, the DFES sorted out the situation, and we thought that we had an agreement; then, it changed its mind about how much it was prepared to provide. I have examined the relevant papers and I am trying to be fair on this issue; in fighting for Hillingdon, I want to ensure that we are in the right. The local authority had set its council tax for this year, so it cannot do anything about that; indeed, had it not done so, it would probably have been capped. However, as a result of the DFES's decision, the local authority has had to issue redundancy notices to some 250 civic centre staff in Uxbridge.
	It is unquestionably unfair to blame the asylum seekers, the civic centre workers or the local authority for this situation. I hope that the DFES realises that it has an obligation to provide the money promised under the agreement reached. I need not spell out the possible impact on what is a diverse and largely happy population in Hillingdon. The population is fairly settled, but a development such as this could be the match that ignites something.
	I get a lot of letters about the increasing intrusion of the state into our private lives. An increasing number of closed circuit television cameras are taking our pictures while we drive, for example. We are assured that such measures have been adopted for good reasons, and we are perhaps prepared to accept some of them. There was talk some time ago of council tax inspectors being able to come into our homes. I think that we were assured that that would not happen, but one never knows with this Government.
	Many people write to me saying that they are getting demands for the payment of congestion charges, parking tickets and speeding tickets on behalf of people who do not in fact live at their address. I can speak with a degree of knowledge on this issue. Only the other day, a constituent of mineshe is also my mothersent me some letters that she had received from the Metropolitan police, claiming that she had been speeding. It is unlikely that she would do so in her wheelchair, at the age of 86. Presumably, somebody has registered their vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency using her address. Her case will of course be looked into, but given that this is an increasing problem, I want to know how rigorously it is being dealt with. It is one thing to say, Don't worry Mrs. Randall, we will sort it out, but are these people being pursued, or being allowed to get away with it?
	When the other Mrs. Randall in my lifemy wifetried to get a new number plate, she was told that she must bring in her registration details because lots of people are asking for new number plates so that, when they are caught by speed cameras or incur the congestion charge, they do not get fined. This is a serious problem, which, ironically, is perhaps the result of increasing surveillance, and I would like the Home Office and the Department for Transport to deal with it.
	I look forward to the 2012 Olympic games, of which I have been a supporter since the early days, before it became too popular. My sporting days are, sadly, slightly over. However, in what I took as an early April fool's day joke, but which apparently was not, I received an email from the parliamentary rugby team telling me that I had been selected to play against the New Zealand XV. I suspect that I received that message because some Labour Members wanted me to go to casualty.
	The council tax bills that have just gone out carry a small surcharge for the Olympics. Many people in west London are concerned that they will not get much in return, as Londoners will not get reduced-price tickets for the various events. Another annoyance concerns the restoration of the old Uxbridge lido. Its outdoor nature will be retained, but an indoor swimming pool and a leisure centre will be added. Hillingdon borough has enough money for a 25m pool, but we would like the lido to have an Olympic-size, 50m pool. The official bodies responsible for British swimming say that such a pool is desperately needed in west London.
	We were told that there was a good chance that success in the Olympic bid would lead to some extra funds for the lido restoration. That extra money would make it possible to go for the larger pooleven though the local authority would prefer to stick to the 25m size, as it is cheaper to maintain. Somehow, though, the money has not appeared, from any source. All the help seems to be going to other areas of London.
	That is a shame, and a wasted opportunity. Many constituents write to me to complain about the money being spent on the games, and I should be delighted to be able to tell them that at least we had something to show for it. I hope that the matter can be drawn to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, although from time to time I correspond with them about the matter.
	All hon. Members will agree about the need to provide more youth and leisure facilities to reduce antisocial behaviour. I accept that the people one would like to get off the streets are the ones least likely to join in such activities, but the approach is worth considering and I want to commend some of the things that are going on.
	This weekend, I shall accompany my eldest son on a rugby tour, and I shall do the same with my daughter the following weekend. I shall not say where we are going, in case the paparazzi follow in hopes of getting a shot of me in a poncho and a sombrero. I have discovered that team sports are incredibly good for bonding people and giving them a sense of responsibility. The more I see, the more I want to spread the word.
	The House may not be aware of the softer, more feminine side of my character. My youngest daughter is 10 and keen on sport, and that has led me to try to promote women's sport. I want it to be more prominent than at present. The other day, the England women's rugby team won the grand slam, and I am delighted to say that I was lucky enough to be able to see itas opposed to going to Twickenham and watching the men fail.
	England's women cricketers won their version of the Ashes last year, and women are succeeding at other games, including football. The House of Commons should do more to promote and give equal status to women's sport. I have to be careful in this matter, as I understand that, while some sports like to refer to women, others prefer to call them ladies.
	I have given the House a quick run-around of some of the problems that I have encountered, and my thoughts on them. I do not often get an opportunity to make some of the points that I have raised, but I want to remind the Government that we are approaching Easter. It is a time of renewal, rebirth and hope. Labour Members may want to whistle the ditty Always Look on the Bright Side of Life by the Monty Python team as they return to their constituencies, but they should also remember that the first line of the poem The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot tells them that
	April is the cruellest month.

Simon Burns: Before we adjourn and leave the House for the Easter recess, I want to ask Ministers to deal with an issue that is important to my constituents. It concerns the private finance initiative scheme for the Mid Essex Hospital Services trust, based on Broomfield hospital.
	The scheme is a magnificent project worth over 100 million, and has been in hand for some years. The plan is to close an old Victorian hospital in the centre of Chelmsford and to move some of the facilities to the Broomfield hospital on the outskirts of the town. That will make it an even better local hospital, with state-of-the-art facilities and equipment. We will see a rebuilt and regenerated accident and emergency department, a new pathology department, a new children's ward and improved maternity services. It is a scheme that is logical on health and patient care grounds as well as financial grounds. Everyone in the mid-Essex area supports it.
	A great deal of work has been done by trust officials, consultants and medical practitioners to put the scheme in position. We have been awaiting the final approval of the PFI scheme. We were promised that the approval would be given in October last year. October became November, November became before Christmas, Christmas came and went and the new year came and went and still delays through bureaucracy meant that we did not get our final approval.
	We then discovered on 26 January that the Treasury had changed the ground rules and that a freeze was put on all PFI schemes subject to a reappraisal. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) told me in a written answer on 23 March:
	We announced on 26 January 2006 that all trusts would need to confirm their capital investment plans through a reappraisal process, including where applicable private finance initiative (PFI) schemes. The aim of this process is to ensure that all schemes properly take account of the current reforms to the national health service such as choice, a movement of services
	and so on. I hope that you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I emphasised the words all schemes.
	It is slightly surprising that a few weeks ago Barts and the London NHS Trust, which had been subject to the same freeze and the same reappraisal, was given approval. We are awaiting the guidelines from the Government for the basis of that reappraisal. We were promised that the instructions for the guidelines would be issued to the trusts by 31 March. That is tomorrow. As of this morning, the trusts had not received it. We have to wait for the guidelines for the reappraisal before we can comply. The House should remember that that applies to all trusts and all schemes.
	About two or three weeks ago Barts managed to get its PFI scheme fast-tracked and approved. I am not the sort of evil person who would suggest that there was a correlation between that decision and the vote that was pending in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill. I know that people such as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in the east end of London were causing the Government a degree of difficulty with regard to that vote, but I am not the sort of person who would suggest that the application was fast-tracked to try to ease the passage of the Bill, although I suspect that some less charitable hon. Friends of mine may have drawn that conclusion.
	I do not begrudge Barts approval of its PFI scheme. What concerns me is that the Broomfield scheme has not been approved, given that it has been waiting since October for approval and it is not its fault that it did not get approval before 26 January when the Treasury issued new rules. It was due to slippage and bureaucracy that the trust did not manage to get it; the Department of Health could not find the time to approve it.
	There is a knock-on effect. It will possibly take some considerable time to get that approval. I am heartened that in the same answer the Minister said:
	Departmental officials will shortly be writing to all trusts
	about schemes such as those I mentioned, although it looks as though they will miss that deadline, which is hardly encouraging. She continued:
	Schemes such as the one at the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust, which are closer to financial close, will be focused on first.
	That is welcome news, although it is disappointing that the trust has been put in limbo due to the Treasury changes. However, given that the scheme was ready for approval last October, I do not understand why it has to go through all that rigmarole again.
	There is another knock-on effectthe cost of the scheme. Delay has financial implications. I asked the Minister about that but the answer was somewhat disingenuous:
	The trust may incur some additional costs in carrying out this work, but this will be more than offset by the savings which will be realised by the reappraisal exercise.[Official Report, 23 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 57778W.]
	That is comforting, although most of us do not think that there is much to reappraise, because the scheme is reaching conclusion and is now awaiting approval.
	Despite the Minister's golden words, there are considerable knock-on effects, but it is a sad fact of life that I cannot disclose them to the House because the information is commercially confidential. I have a vague idea about the cost, so it is slightly disingenuous for the Minister to gloss over it in a written answer by spinning the line that the reappraisal will ultimately bring financial benefits when everybody knows that there will be none at all. I only hope that the Minister's answer was not code and that it does not really mean that there will be a decision to cut part of the scheme after the reappraisal. That would be a saving, albeit in a narrow, legal sense; the scheme would cost less, because there would be less of it.
	Will the Minister draw my concerns to the attention of the relevant Health Minister so that something can be done to fast-track a decision? The scheme is excellent and will benefit not only my constituents but those of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) who has worked as hard, if not harder, than me to persuade the Department of Health to expedite the matter.
	I want to raise another matter: an absolute scandal involving the use of stolen or false identity to avoid the consequences when people break the law, especially with regard to road traffic offences, something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) alluded. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has worked on the matter over a number of months and I pay tribute to him for his involvement.
	In my constituency, we have a particular problem: 25 Duke street. It is an innocuous-looking building in the centre of Chelmsford, but in fact it is a mass-mailing address. It is notorious with Essex and Bedford policepeople from south Bedfordshire are particularly attracted to the services offered by 25 Duke streetand with Hertfordshire police, as an address that people use to register vehicles. Mr. Smith at 25 Duke street looks perfectly viable. Who is to know that it is actually a convenience address? The advantage is that Mr. Smith can speed past safety cameras, jump red lights and commit with impunity other road traffic offences caught on camera. When a letter arrives at the address setting out the offence and demanding a fine, there is no one to collect it. Officials cannot speak to Mr. Smith if they call at 25 Duke street, because it is not a residential address; it is a mailbox address.
	I have had the benefit of being shown photographs of young people joyriding past speed cameras, using the middle finger on their right hands with impunity to show what they think of the system. I have explained their way of avoiding paying any fine, getting any points andultimately, if they are convicted often enoughlosing their licences. Like any so-called good little wheeze, most of those involved are serial offenders, and it is amazing how often people can run up speeding fines or jump red lights if they know that no one will identify them or their residence from the photograph that has been taken, or hold them to account for breaking the law.
	To my mind, there is something very wrong with such behaviour, and we should consider not simply the morality of breaking the law by speeding or whatever with impunity, but the fact that local authorities are deprived of the money that they are owed because of the offences that have been caused. That money could be ploughed back into road safety measures. I cannot understand why such things are tolerated.
	I have tabled questions to the relevant Minister in the past two weeks to ask how many road traffic offences have been caused in that manner by people who are registered at 25 Duke street. I was slighted surprised that he replied that he could not give me the information because of the Data Protection Act 1998. I was not asking for the names of the people who were committing those offences; I was simply asking for the number involved. When I asked other factual questions of that naturenot about the names of the individuals, but about the numbers of offences and the amount of money that may have been lost to the local authority and the stateI was also slightly surprised to be told that all that was covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. When I also asked what type of offence had been caused, I was also told that that was not something with which the Government could supply me.
	I am slightly surprised. If one is an avid reader of Hansard and one reads the in-depth and knowledgeable speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West BedfordshireI recommend those speeches to my hon. Friendsone finds that he has been given information for his constituency, not specifically for 25 Duke street, about the offences that have been picked up on camera that have not been pursued because the address given for the vehicle is a mailing address or bogus. Why can such information be given to my hon. Friend, who is a law-abiding colleaguefor example, by Bedfordshire police, I assumewhereas the Government cannot give it to me, because they say that doing so would breach the Data Protection Act 1998?
	I was horrified at the answer when I asked the relevant Minister in a written question how the Government proposed to change the law to block that loophole. I would have accepted it if they had said that it is a very difficult issue and they must consider how to draft legislation that would effectively deal with that specific problem, but not at all: they simply said that they had no plan to change the law. So the problem will continue, unless hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and others, keep pressing the Government, because it is wrong and it is a scandal. Given the irresponsibility of the individuals involved, particularly the young peoplethey are speeding, jumping red lights and so onthey could well threaten their own lives or injure themselves. Equally important, if not more important to some people, they could threaten the lives of or injure innocent people who become caught up in their antisocial and illegal behaviour.

Andrew Selous: I can update my hon. Friend a little on the issue that he is talking about, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). This morning, I spent 45 minutes with the head of road policing from the Association of Chief Police Officers, who is seized of the problem. He assured me that, within the next year to 18 months or so, he will use his best endeavours to ensure that some remedies to the problem are on the statute book. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for giving the problem further publicity.

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I am reassured that ACPO has given that commitment. My only disappointment is that Transport Ministers will not give it. As he knows as well as I do, sadly, the only way, realistically, one can make a change to the law in Parliament is through Government legislation or a private Member's Bill that the Government either support or are not prepared to block. I hope that, through his initiatives and lobbying, through ACPO and through the Minister relaying our concerns to the Department for Transportand equally importantly, because Whips are the nuts and bolts that keep the system working, through the Whip, who has been listening very attentivelysomething can be done, in a reasonable but realistic way, to put an end to an abuse that not only costs money, but increases and to some extent encourages irresponsible driving, accidents, deaths and personal injuries.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to raise a number of points. I apologise in advance for my voice. I do not sound like this because someone has made an unsuccessful attempt to strangle me; it is simply that I have a sore throat.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his speech and, in particular, join him in welcoming the Olympic games to London in 2012. I know that Members have different views on that, but I certainly intend to make sure that Southend is at the heart of the celebrations. We intend to get the pier rebuilt in time so that it can be part of the opening celebrations.
	I also want to take up my hon. Friend's very valid point about ladies playing sport. I have a 14-year-old girl who plays No. 9 for Arsenal. I can cope with her playing for Arsenal, because, although I support West Ham and Southend, it is a very successful ladies' team. He is right that we do not celebrate the success of women in sport enough. That is why it was disappointing that the BBC news did not report on the excellent progress of the ladies' football team in making their way towards the World cup finals.

John Whittingdale: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments about women's football. They give me the opportunity to tell him and the House that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, announced yesterday that it will hold a one-day inquiry into women's football, where I hope that we can address some of the issues that he has raised.

David Amess: There we are. I am pushing at an open door, as far as my hon. Friend is concerned. That is wonderful news and I shall certainly make time, if not to be there in person to observe the inquiry, to read the evidence. I congratulate him on that.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who was a distinguished member of the Health Committee. I have just returned from Stockholm, where the Committee is doing important work examining independent treatment centres. He will be interested to know that yesterday Committee members had a robust debate on PFI initiatives and it was felt that one was slightly more successful in having PFI programmes endorsed by the Government if one happened to be a Labour Member of Parliament. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and I felt that if one was a Conservative Member of Parliamentas we obviously areone did not have much of a look in. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) have a very strong case as far as Broomfield hospital is concerned and I am sure that the excellent Minister who will be replying to the debate will get the right answer from the Department of Health.
	The Minister knows that I have raised on many occasions the situation of my constituent, Majid Narwaz. I am delighted to tell the House that I was at Heathrow airport last month to welcome him and his two fellow detainees back from Cairo. They had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment on absolutely trumped-up charges. They were tortured while in prison and what went on was deplorable. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office and the British embassy in Cairo for working as hard as possible to try to get my constituent released. I know that the Prime Minister takes regular holidays in Egypt, so I am sure that he took the opportunity to raise the matter with President Mubarak whenever he could.
	I am delighted that Majid has been reunited with his wife, son and parents, but not delighted about the disgraceful reception to which the three young men were treated at Heathrow airport. I am mystified about what happened because in the endless debates in which I spoke about the matter, the answers to questions that I asked, and meetings with Ministers, it was clearly indicated to mefrom the Foreign Secretary downthat the British Government agreed that the three men had been treated badly. I thus naturally assumed, in all innocence, that there would be a welcome reception for them at Heathrow airport, so I took the trouble, as I was instructed to do, to ensure only that they were escorted on to the plane in Egypt because it is apparently a practice of the Egyptian authorities to release people and then re-arrest them.
	There were a huge number of people at Heathrow, many of whom were elderly relatives, but no provision had been made for the reception of the three young men. None of us can imagine what it was like to be in prison in Cairo. Never mind about the way things are in this country, for the first six months, the men were sleeping on concrete floors. They had no toilets and they were not allowed to go to the toiletit really was Midnight Express stuff. However, rather than provision being made at Heathrow airport for a private reception for the three men and their close relatives, everyone was just left standing.
	The plane touched down on time, but there was such a fiasco that it took four hours before we saw the men. I made phone calls to Whitehall during that time. It was not easy to get hold of an official, but, to cut a long story short, I was told that the arrangements were not the Foreign Office's responsibility because its responsibility was to get the men on the plane at Cairo. I was also told that the arrangements were not the responsibility of the Home Office, but a police matter. However, unless I have missed the plot, the Home Office has responsibility for the police.
	Something that should have been a joyous occasion was absolutely spoiled by the arrangements. Whatever the reasons for the men being questioned, surely to goodness arrangements could have been made so that they could spend five or 10 minutes with the people whom they had not seen for four years before the questioning took place. I am more than disappointed about what happened. I hope that the testimony that the three young men will be giving the Foreign Office about torture will be taken seriously because that is entirely against the United Nations convention.
	I recently led a successful delegation to Rome and then on to the Vatican. We enjoyed a good meeting with Italian Members of Parliament in their Parliament, but, obviously, the highlight of the trip was meeting His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was delighted when, for the first time ever, the British ambassador to the Holy See happened to be a Catholic. I thought that that was a smart move. It is less than a smart move for the Foreign Office to decide to close the embassy to the Holy See and the ambassador's residence in the Vatican. This is a disgrace. These facilities have existed in the Vatican since the Lateran treaty. It is also a pretty dumb move on the part of the Government to invite the Pope to visit Britain next year and then to close our embassy to the Holy See and to take away the residence.
	The Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 174 nations and all major powers have separate missions to the Vatican and to Rome. Britain and the Vatican are currently engaged in a vital dialogue on issues such as relations with Islam, development aid to Africathe Chancellor of the Exchequer was happy to make a big speech in the Holy See last year on aid to Africaas well as Anglican-Catholic rapprochement. On every count I would ask the Minister to ascertain from the Foreign Office what on earth is going on.
	I have already decided to set up a forum for discussion and action on this issue, by setting up an all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See. I know that Members, quite rightly, get sick of these groups. I think that we have everything from tiddlywinks to Coronation Street. However, I have decided to set up a forum on a serious issue. I hope that as many Members as possible of both Houses will join it and support the embassy in the Vatican as an independent entity and recognise the important international role that it performs. I cannot think of a more stupid time to close the embassy and to take away the residence than now. We have a wonderful ambassador there, Francis Campbell, and it is an insult, considering that we have the Holy Father visiting this country next year, that we should change our diplomatic relations.
	I move on to local government. The Minister knows only too well that Southend borough council has been faced with extremely tough financial decisions following the fiasco of the census. It is wonderful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that the Office for National Statistics will be independent. That seems a bit late for Southend. The 2001 census left 20,000 people off the register in Southend. That meant that the Government's grant was reduced by 7 million. I and some of my hon. Friends met fairly recently at county hall at Chelmsford to discuss these matters, which greatly affect us. I intend to mention the disgraceful thing that has happened to the Essex police force.
	At the beginning of the year, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and representatives from Southend borough council met the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), to discuss the shortfall in local finance. We took the opportunity to raise the fact that Southend received only a 2 per cent. increase in its grant from central Government, while local councils received on average a 3 per cent. increase. We all know about the Government's intention to cap councils. I think that they have decided to cap two and have threatened another three.
	We were told at the meeting that council tax could not rise by more than 5 per cent. I am beginning to wonder what is the point of anyone standing in the council elections on 4 May. It seems that the Government tell people how much money to raise and how they should spend it. In every aspect of local government life, throughout the time that I have been a Member of this place, I have seen more and more central direction, and never more so than under this Government.
	Despite the meeting that we had with the Minister, who was extremely courteous, when the figures for the final local government assessment were released they showed a fall in the total formula grant from the Government of 34,000. Perhaps there is a lesson for my hon. Friends; do not seek meetings with Ministers because we end up getting less money than if we did not bother to meet them. [Interruption.] Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford says, it is a co-incidence that I happen to be a Conservative Member of Parliament.
	To meet the Government's restrictions and produce a balanced budget without raising council tax by more than 5 per cent., Southend borough council needs to fill a funding gap of 11 million between expected income and expected expenditure. Southend is a small unitary authority and that has caused havoc locally, on top of budget reductions of 25 million over the past five years. Local councillors have had to make painful decisions. I suppose the Government think, Oh well, let's hope the local electorate blame Conservative local councillors. It would be a great shame if that happened, because the difficulties are entirely a result of 20,000 people being omitted from the national census.
	One critical casualty of the funding cuts has been the subsidy paid to commercial bus operators in Southend, forcing them to withdraw a number of vital services. I have been working hard with fellow councillors to restore a decent network of bus services in Southend. Unfortunately, thus far it has been difficult to find a prime sponsor without some sort of subsidy from the council, as the council does not have the money to provide a subsidy. However, the scheme that we are examining, and which I hope we can launch soon, is a taxi bus sharing system that will at least help our senior citizens get to Southend hospital and, I hope, take them to other parts of the town.
	Southend is, I repeat, a small unitary authority faced with some very large challenges, such as the rebuilding of the pier, which has burned down for the third time, and the halting of the slippage of the cliffs. The council's current financial problems are the result of the Government's failure to recognise local needs. My constituents are paying the price through cuts to local services across the town. That is unacceptable.
	I understand that the Office for National Statistics is unwilling to review the population estimate. Why? The ONS should be made to accept that it made a mistake. Any Member of Parliament would complain on behalf of their constituents if they had 20,000 people left off the funding stream.
	The next topic that I wish to raise is the matter of badgers. I recall Lord Waldegrave, as he now is, taking the Protection of Badgers Bill through the House. I spoke on Third Reading and said how much I welcomed the Bill. All these years on, I am beginning to reflect on that legislation. All the badgers in my part of Essex seem to have had a meeting and decided that they like the look of the back gardens of various terraced houses. In the small hours of the morning, they all seem to join arms and somehowsomeone must leave the front door opentake over umpteen back gardens in Southend. That is causing havoc in residential areas.
	Residents of Lymington avenue in Leigh-on-Sea, for instance, have had their gardens destroyednot just one or two, but a number of houses. Garages are beginning to collapse and the foundations of houses are being destroyed. As if that was not bad enough, two weeks ago in Queen Anne's drive and Rochester drive in Westcliff, another crowd of badgers apparently got together and moved into back gardens there. Fences have been smashed, pets attacked and property destroyed by the animals from the six badger setts identified by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that run beneath their gardens.
	I will not tire the House with details of the endless meetings that I have had with residents about getting the badgers moved. I would be so grateful if the Minister would have a word with his delightful colleague in DEFRA and try and get him to agree to a meeting with me and a few residents. I understand that since the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 came into force, only two orders have been served to try and get badgers peacefully removed.
	The residents whom I have mentioned are not farmers and landowners who are concerned about the spread of bovine TB to their livestock. They are town dwellers, and their properties have been invaded by what I can only describe as urban badgers. Some people think that badgers are cuddly, but if one goes near a badger, one might lose one's arm, so no member of the general public should try to remove a badger. So far, DEFRA has failed to come up with a tenable solution to the problem, despite the increasingly bold and violent behaviour of those animals. Urban badgers are a bit like urban foxes. When I get off the train at Mudchute and go to my little pad on the Isle of Dogs, the foxes do not run away from the commuters, although some of them have three legs. The foxes walk around like dogs, and they have become increasingly domesticated.
	An e-petition opposing badger culling as a method of preventing the spread of bovine TB has been signed by 11,350 people. Residents have advanced translocation as their preferred option, but DEFRA has rejected the application for a licence because of concerns about the spread of TB. It proposes to capture and humanely cull the badgers, but that would also involve the animals being moved away from the houses, which still raises concerns about the spread of TB.

David Heath: The House is treating the hon. Gentleman's comments with some levity, but the issue is serious. I used to be woken up every Sunday morning by people complaining about the badgers in Castle Cary. However, that particular problem has not arisen in my constituency recently, so perhaps those badgers have moved to Southend.

David Amess: The badgers may have arrived by boat on the Thames estuary. My constituency is a tiny little urban area, so the situation is incrediblethe badgers are on the march to Southend, West.
	DEFRA's conviction that badgers are the chief transmitters of the disease to cattle is the foundation of its proposal to introduce some sort of licensed cull. On 15 December last year, DEFRA issued a consultation paper on badger culling, seeking views on its three proposed licence-based culling options. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry on bovine TB and badger culling was undertaken to contribute to that consultation, which finished on 10 March. The evidence collated in the report shows some significant holes in the Government's proposalsthe holes were identified by scientific experts and had been overlooked by DEFRA in the pre-consultation process.
	There was wide concern that not only was there not enough scientific proof to achieve consensus on any one of DEFRA's proposals, but the evidence from the badger-culling trial, which took place in 2005, and the work of the independent scientific groups on cattle TB, show that localised reactive badger culling was associated with increases of up to 25 per cent. in the number of cattle herds with TB. Incidents of confirmed TB were also higher on land neighbouring proactive areas, which is otherwise known as the edge effect. Those results help us to understand why badger culling has been an effective strategy in the past for controlling TB, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) recently admitted that 80 per cent. of the transmission of the disease is from cattle to cattle.
	There are many ways to deal with the spread of TB other than killing badgers. For instance, Professor Tim Roper, who is currently running a three-year investigation on the activities of urban badgers, has said that in the long-term
	the only solution is vaccination,
	which goes against the view of the National Farmers Union that robust culling measures are the answer. Professor Roper is well aware of the sensitive nature of incidents involving urban badger populations, and he has mentioned the extent of the public and parliamentary demonstrations that were mounted when attempts were made to catch and destroy badgers in Saltdean in East Sussex that were undermining the foundations of several homes in the area.
	That emotional response is just a taste of what would ensue should the Government decide to follow through on a much larger culling programme. In 2004, when questioned on how to deal with the problem of urban badger populations by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who had also had considerable difficulties with badgers in residential areasalthough he has probably moved them all on to Southend, Westthe Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Exeter, responded by saying that there is no simple answer to the question.
	You can say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is obvious in the extreme. If there were a simple solution, my constituents would not have suffered years of indecisive inaction from DEFRA on the removal of these badgers from Leigh-on-Sea and Westcliff. I am still awaiting a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), as to whether he will meet me and the affected residents to discuss the extent of the badger problem in Southend. I hope that such a discussion will bring home the plight of the urban dwellers, as well as rural landowners and farmers, who are affected by the issues surrounding badger culling.
	As two of my hon. Friends from Essexmy hon. Friends the Member for West Chelmsford and for Maldon and East Chelmsfordare here, let me say that I share their anger about what has happened as regards the merger of Essex police force with those of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. In Essex, we enjoy very good relations with Kent police force. However, it is completely unfair and unreasonable that its police force is allowed to stand alone while Essex's is not. My hon. Friends and I, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), have campaigned and worked extremely hard on this issue.
	One reason why we are so upset about it is that for several years we had concerns about the style of policing in Essex, many of which are well known to the House. Just at a time when we have secured the employment of an excellent chief constable whom I believe to be the best in the country and who is absolutely determined to give the general public the style of policing that we all wantin other words, when a crime is reported it is not ignored but someone turns up to investigate the situationwe find that this merger is to take place. I hope that it will be possible to have a referendum on this issue in Essex. My hon. Friends and I are absolutely determined to continue to campaign on it.
	I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as Members of Parliament we are not allowed to criticise the judiciary, and I understand that. However, I am very concerned about the inconsistencies in sentencing, particularly when someone takes another person's life. Several of us feel very strongly about that. Recently, when someone was murdered fairly locally, the two young men were caught, and one got 12 months and one got 14 months. That was the value placed on that person's life. I know that Ministers will say that the Sentencing Guidelines Council considers all these issues, but I am less than happy with the lack of consistency.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point, for Rochford and Southend, East and for Rayleigh and I remain concerned about the proposed reconfiguration of cancer services in Southend. If some of the important specialisms are removed, that will eventually lead to Southend being a less attractive place for clinicians to work in.
	British Airways used to be the best airline in the world. That is no longer the case as far as I am concerned. Lord King was a wonderful pioneer, and I am afraid that since his departure British Airways has gone down and down in my estimation. Its flights are poorly timetabled, its airliners are often not clean and tidy, some of the prices that it charges are outrageous, and it has a monopoly on some services. I understand that one or two lords serve on the board and I hope that they will read my complaint about the airline.
	I was glad that several hon. Friends mentioned abortion. Before the general election, the leaders of the three main parties said, initially in response to a magazine article, how important it was. A year later, nothing has happened. It cannot be right that we continue to abort babies up to term on the ground of a cleft palate when we have special baby care units that now save babies at 22 and a half weeks. There is no point in being in politics unless one is interested in people's lives. Parliament's continued equivocation about when life begins is unacceptable.

Theresa May: As ever with pre-recess Adjournment debates, hon. Members' contributions have ranged widely. One of the delights of my role as shadow Leader of the House is the opportunity that the debates afford to learn a great deal more about colleagues' constituencies. The challenge of my role is to do justice to the many contributions. I will do my best.
	It was interesting that several contributions referred to issues that have been raised regularly in business questions in recent weeks, when hon. Members have urged the Leader of the House to hold full debates in Government time on them. The right hon. Gentleman has resisted. The fact that so many hon. Members were willing to raise them again today shows the genuine need for a proper Government debate on matters such as the Post Office card account and the national health service.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did the House a service by speaking about the Post Office card account. It is remarkable that the subject has been raised week in, week out, by hon. Members of all partiesLabour Members have mentioned their concerns, toofor almost the whole time that I have been shadow Leader of the House, yet the Government have not been willing to grant a debate in Government time on that important issue. Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, with its responsibility for the Post Office, and in the Department for Work and Pensions, with its responsibility for the card account, have not even made oral statements on the matter.
	The Leader of the House has consistently reiterated the Government's commitment to the Post Office. Given that its chief executive told an all-party group that removing the card account could lead to a reduction in the number of post offices from approximately 14,000 to 4,000meaning the closure of 10,000 post officesthe Government must wake up and understand that they will face a stark decision as a result of their action. How will they back up the commitment to the Post Office, continue to support it in future, and ensure that the damaging closure of branches, which we have already experienced, does not become the threatened cull of post offices?
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned several other issues, some of which were picked up by other hon. Members, and I shall refer to them later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised serious issues concerning children. His commitment to fighting for children's interests is well known. He also mentioned such matters in the Christmas Adjournment debate. His remarks about the use of the caution for those who take indecent photographs of children raises two issues: child pornography and the treatment of paedophiles, and appropriate use by the police and the judiciary of their powers, not only to punish wrongdoing but to protect society. They have a duty to do both. We must never forget that every indecent image of a child reflects an incident of child abuse. I hope that the Government have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's observations on this serious issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also raised the issue of abortion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I share their interest in that issue being reassessed, and the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about the time limit for abortions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned the Government's proposals for police mergersan issue that was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I hesitate to say that there was an Essex mafia in the Chamber today, but that did appear to be the case. Time after time, the Prime Minister has said in the Chamber that he will listen to local people's views on police mergers, so why are the Government ignoring the views not only of local people but of the police? That is happening not only in Essex but across the country. This illustrates the fact that the Government have no proper regional policy, which is a sad fact for a Labour Government. Their answer to regional policy is simply to create larger and larger bureaucratic structures, be they police forces, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, fire authorities or ambulance services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned overdevelopment, a problem that affects many constituencies up and down the country. We all agree that there is a demand for housing, and particularly for affordable homes, but that is not a reason for cramming development into back gardens and infill sites. Nor is the need for family homes met by the tendency to knock down family homes and replace them with flats, as I have seen happening in Shoppenhangers road in my constituency. Such a practice might meet the Deputy Prime Minister's density requirements and his target number for dwellings, but it does not provide the kind of housing that people need. It changes the character of areas, and puts unacceptable pressure on infrastructure such as roads, schools, GPs' surgeries and utilities such as water.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point might like to suggest to Essex county council that it follow the example set by Conservative-controlled Wokingham district council, which has commissioned independent consultants to assess the cost of the infrastructure needed to support the new homes that the Government require it to build as part of their target. If every council did that, we would have a clear picture of the hundreds of millions of pounds that will need to be spent on infrastructure to support the new homes that the Government are proposing to build.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who, unfortunately, is no longer in her place, mentioned her desire for two schools in her constituency, Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor, to be given academy status. I think that I am right in sayingI am sure that she will correct me, on reading Hansard, if I am wrongthat Mitcham Vale is the school that I knew as Eastfields when I was chairman of the local education authority in Merton. I was grateful to her for her words of gratitude for the significant contribution made to education by my noble Friend Lord Harris, who has shown an incredible commitment to improving education in south London. He has truly put his money where his mouth is.
	The hon. Lady made a number of comments about the position taken by the Conservative group on Merton council, and implied that it was blocking progress on the academies. My understanding is that, in fact, the official survey on the issue showed that people in the London borough of Merton were four to one against that development. The issue raised by Conservative councillors was that these decisions needed to be taken in full knowledge of the implications for other schools. Merton is tied in to a 25-year private finance initiative for its schools. The two schools mentioned by the hon. Lady would be allowed to withdraw from that, but that would result in implications for other schools that would need to be addressed.
	Education in Merton as a whole has undergone a considerable upheaval in recent years, with the move under a Labour authority from a three-tier system to a two-tier system. I recall from my days of chairing the education authority there that the Labour councillors were rather more in favour of three-tier education than they now appear to be. Sadly, since my time, Merton has slipped significantly down the league table of education standards in London, and that is a matter of considerable concern to the residents of that borough.
	Another topic that has been raised by several Members, as well as being raised constantly in business questionsand rightly sois that of the NHS. As we see thousands of jobs being cut across the health service, operations cancelled, waiting times extended and trusts in deficit, the Health Secretary has said that this has been the best year for the health service. I sometimes wonder what Ministers in this Government spend their time doing. They certainly do not seem to spend their time going out there to find out what is happening in the services for which they have responsibility. We need to take every opportunity, as a number of Members have done today, to bring home to the Government what is happening in the health service in our constituencies, because it is not what the Government like to think is happening.
	The issue of the health service was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Uxbridge (Mr Randall) and for Southend, West. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford put in an excellent and well-argued claim for the private finance initiative in Mid Essex Hospital Services trust, centred on Broomfield hospital, to be given proper consideration by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to Mount Vernon and the removal of cancer services, which, as I said to him, affects some of my constituents, too. The issue of the reconfiguration of cancer services was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. That issue is of concern across many areas of the country. In my area, cancer services are being moved from the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospital trust to the John Radcliffe in Oxford. Again, local people want to have easy access in their locality to the services that they need from the health service.
	The NHS was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and, from a different angle, by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who gave a serious speech on the integration of social services and the health service, and spoke particularly about the needs of people with dementia. He is right that there is a real need to reassess services for those with dementia, particularly given the paucity of beds in residential care homes for people with dementia. I trust that my hon. Friend the Whip on duty will ask where the hon. Member for North Swindon is. I trust that he will read my comments in Hansard to see what has been said about his contribution.
	The issue of integrating social services with health services is particularly important and will cause considerable concern to many people, in many areas, in the coming months. Given the deficits in primary care trusts in many areas, increased pressure will be put on social services departments in local authorities. We are told by the Association of Directors of Social Services that social services budgets are already 1.76 billion underfunded. The Government therefore need to address that issue, which arises from deficits in the health service.
	Apart from Essex, the east midlandsI think that I have got my midlands rightwere well represented in our debate by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire referred to my response to his speech in the Christmas Adjournment debate. Were he present, I would assure him that I always find his contributions riveting, although I suspect that the same cannot always be said for his Front Bench. He raised important points about our reactions to the problems of the environment and of climate change in particular, and talked about the need for the Government to ensure that the measures that they introduce in those areas are going to work.
	We all know, of course, that the Government have now admitted that they will not meet their own targets for greenhouse gas emissions. In business questions earlier, the Leader of the House indicated to one of my right hon. Friends that he felt that only this Government had done anything on climate change. Of course, the Government's initial success on carbon dioxide emissions, from which they are now slipping back, came about only because of decisions by the last Conservative Government to change from coal-fired power stations.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire referred to measures such as the aggregates levy, which have not always achieved what they set out to achieve. He also did something else that I thought was important: he spoke of ways in which, at a very local level, individuals could take effective action. He referred particularly to energy efficiency in homes and insulation. I pay tribute to a local authority that has done a great deal in that regardWoking council, which is Conservative-controlled and has made significant strides in reducing emissions. It is, I suggest, a beacon for other authorities.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire raised the important issue of farm payments and the Rural Payments Agency. I consider it despicable that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to come to the House to explain what has happened in the agency, and to apologise to farmers up and down the country for the fact that, month in month out, she and her Ministers have been saying that there is no problem and that farmers will receive their payments. As we know from my right hon. Friend and others, that is not the case. Farmers are not receiving their payments, and many are extremely frustrated by the bureaucracy in the agency.
	One of my local farmers recently sent me a letter that he had received from staff at the agency telling him that he had not filled in a form which needed to be sent back. He rang up and told them that he had completed the form, and that it had been sent to them some time earlier. They said, No, that was a letter that we sent out just in case. That is the sort of bureaucracy that really does frustrate people, and when they are not receiving payments it becomes even more frustrating.
	It was a pleasure to take a trip to the Isle of Wight during the debate, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He raised specific issues about the operation of the national health service on the island. The overarching theme was that the Government should note that his constituency, as an island, experiences particular problems with the provision of servicesnot just NHS serviceswhich are not experienced in other parts of the country. It is not as easy for people on the Isle of Wight to travel elsewhere to obtain their services. My hon. Friend has consistently raised the problem of the lack of dentists on the island, and he did so again today. The same theme has been repeated by many Members in all parts of the House during other debates and question sessions.
	What concerned me was my hon. Friend's comment that he felt that some people in the health service were being discouraged from asking him, as a Member of Parliament, to raise issues that were important to them. It is the job of Members to raise issues that are of concern in their constituencies. It may be uncomfortable for Ministers; it may even, on occasion, be uncomfortable for senior managers in public services, but they cannot and should not silence the elected representatives of the people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise his concerns despite attempts to prevent him from doing so.
	I join my hon. Friend in commending Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight council for making positive changes for the islanders. I commend it particularly for stepping in to pay the fares of those who need to cross the Solent for health service treatment, and for introducing a low bus fare for young people. Young people often tell me that they cannot afford to travel to places that they want to visit, and that it is too expensive for them to do the many things that they want to do. The new service on the Isle of Wight is very valuable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge ranged widely over a variety of topics, but began with a thoughtful comment on the situation in the Balkans, particularly Kosovo. One of his remarks really struck home, at least for me: he said that for the sake of the peace of Europe, we should not ignore developments in that area. Indeed, I suggest to my hon. Friend that the history of Europe shows that we should never ignore the Balkans.
	My hon. Friend's wish for a debate on foreign affairs was also expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although his emphasis was on Iraq and Afghanistan. Both speeches demonstrated the real need for us to engage in a proper debate in the Chamber, in Government time, on the Government's foreign policy and their foreign policy aims. That was also reflected in a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West about the closure of the embassy to the Holy See. We need to know from the Government what they are trying to achieve with their foreign policy. They published a White Paper this week that talked of active diplomacy, but people cannot indulge in active diplomacy if they go around shutting embassies and high commissions.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also referred to the work being done by our armed forces, and I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel, both regulars and reservists, who serve abroad on our behalf.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also spoke about the Olympics, and said that the promised development of facilities should be encouraged rather than deferred because of the prospect of the Olympics. When Olympic bids were first being discussed, I understand that there were more 50 m swimming pools in Paris than in the whole of England. The new 50 m pool that my hon. Friend mentioned is therefore much needed.
	I also heartily endorse my hon. Friend's comment that we need to promote women's sport. I add my congratulations to the women's England rugby team, and I recall the success of the England women's cricket team in winning the Ashes last summer. It was noticeable during the Commonwealth games that our women athletes had rather more medal success on the track than the men. And while I am on a sporting theme, I cannot miss this opportunity to congratulate Reading football club on their promotion to the premier league.
	Several of my hon. Friends raised the serious issue of identity fraud, and the use of other people's addresses and mailbox addresses. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for Uxbridge raised that issue and paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has taken a particular interest in it. As he mentioned, he had a meeting today with the senior police officer from ACPO responsible for that issue. It has been recorded that one vehicle was responsible for 120 offencesI assume that they were speeding offences. That reveals the size of the problem. It is an interesting problem, because the Government keep telling us that identity cards will resolve it, but they will not. I only hope that the serious way in which ACPO are treating the issue, according to my hon. Friend, will be reflected in the measures taken by the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West also addressed a range of topics. He has been assiduous in his work to get his constituent released from jail in Egypt, and as he said, he was very pleased when that was achieved, although he was understandably saddened by the Government's approach to his constituent's return. I trust that the Government have noted my hon. Friend's comments about their treatment of that individual.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned local council funding, and made an interesting point about why people would wish to become councillors, given that so many decisions are now made by central Government. That is a very real problem. So many powers have been taken away from local government that many people think twice about becoming councillors. That is also why turnout in local government elections has fallen so dramatically. The restoration of powers to local government would be a real means of restoring people's interest in local democracy.
	My hon. Friend also raised the serious issue of delinquent badgers. I am tempted to say that the Government's response to such behaviour is usually to slap on an ASBO, so perhaps he should consult the police and local authority on that possibility. Despite the enjoyment that we had in listening to his description of those badgers, it is a serious issue. My hon. Friend questioned the effectiveness of culling in preventing bovine TB, but many farmers are distraught at the lack of action by the Government and the length of time that they have taken to recognise the seriousness and importance of the issue. Most of the evidence suggests that culling of some sort is what is needed.
	Turning to some of the key themes emerging from this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire gave examples of how the Government are not fulfilling their promises. That is perhaps a familiar theme, but he illustrated it well withdare I say it?concrete examples from his own constituency. As I know from the experience of the A404, Ministers turn up and make promises about resurfacing a road to eliminate noise, and thenlo and beholdthe budget is scrapped and the scheme does not go ahead. Ministers make everybody feel happy by giving the impression that something is going to happen; then, two years down the line, the budget is scrapped and nothing happens.
	Imagine what pensioners felt about the Government's approach to last year's 200 council tax rebate. Suddenly, council tax was so high that pensioners needed support from the Government to help them pay for it. This year council tax is rising even further, so one assumes that the problems experienced by the many elderly people who had to be helped last year are even worse. What are the Government doing? They are not providing a single penny. The Deputy Leader of the House will probably say that in a pre-election year, all Governments try to present their best face to the electorate, which is of course true, but the 200 rebate was the most blatant and cynical election bribe we have ever seen.
	However, that fits in with the theme of this debate: the Government's failure to deliver, when they are taxing people so highly that the Minister with responsibility for higher education has told us that people have been taxed to the hilt and cannot take any more. The Government are out of touch. The Health Secretary considers this the best year ever for the health service, yet thousands of jobs have been cut and trusts up and down the country have deficits of hundreds of millions of pounds. So many promises, so much money spent, so little achieved. It is a sad fact that this Government, who have two Prime Ministers and are internal disarray, are in no position to give the Easter message of new birth and hope for the future. The Government's record was summed up by Sir Derek Wanless on Radio 4 this morning when he said:
	Less has been achieved than might have been achieved.
	Optimism and hope for the future can be found not on the Labour Benches, but on the Conservative Benches.
	I finish by echoing what I, and the Leader of the House, said at business questions earlier today. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, for taking on extra responsibilities in Mr. Speaker's absence. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, for taking on those extra responsibilities in turn. You have all stepped into the breach, and I wish you, all Members of this House and all its staff and Officers a very happy Easter.

Nigel Griffiths: It has been interesting to listen to the thoughtful contributions made by a number of Members. The debate was begun by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and I thank her for praising the Government's education strategy, the great efforts of schools, teachers, head teachers, students and carers, and the success of academies. The even-handed nature of her praise should be recognised. She spoke in favour of Lord Harris's support for the programme, and she acknowledged that funding for schools in her area has risen by 1,300 per pupil since 1997.
	My hon. Friend told us that local people have overwhelmingly endorsed and sought a new city academy in Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor, and that it has been rejected not by the council, which is a minority Labour council, but by colleagues of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) who serve on the council. They are attempting to put off the decision until next year and beyondagainst the wishes of the community and of Conservative private sponsors such as Lord Harris.

Theresa May: The Deputy Leader of the House may not have heard me, but I said just now that the official survey of opinion showed that the ratio of people opposing the plans was 4:1.

Nigel Griffiths: To correct the record, the survey of parents most affected conducted by the schools showed that they supported the plans by 2:1. The wider group contained people who may not be directly affected.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a long list of issues, as usual. He began with comments on the Post Office card account, but he and other Opposition Members peddled so much misinformation that I am sure that the House will be grateful for the full facts. The Government are spending 1 billion of public money on funding the Post Office card contract until 2010. It is one of 25 accounts that people can use to access their pensions and benefits, although I understand that some of the others may be cheaper. I urge all consumers of Post Office services to look at all the available accounts, but assure them that the present card account will run for another four years in any case.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will join me in encouraging local councils to follow Edinburgh's example in ensuring that as many council services as possible are paid through local post offices. That includes the business portion of the council tax, domestic council tax bill, rents and other service and environmental charges. I hope too that he will urge people to reject the position adopted by Liberal Democrat councils such as Aberdeen, which has steadfastly refused to fund residents in using those accounts. The consequence is that more post offices have closed in Aberdeen than anywhere else in the country. Moreover, that council's approach may be one reason why Edinburgh's Councillor Longstaffe, an erstwhile Liberal Democrat, deserted that party this week and joined the Labour party.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke about homelessness, a topic that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House dealt with in business questions. However, if the hon. Gentleman needs further amplification, he should realise that the poorest providers of public housing in this country are Liberal Democrat councils. For example, Inverclyde council has been branded by the Accounts Commission in Scotland as the most incompetent authority, and closer to home Lambeth council has been an absolute shambles. There, the Liberal Democrat executive member responsible for housing, Councillor Fitchett, has been forced out after almost a year in office because a fraudster was allowed to get away with 3 million. For seven months, he had clung on to his executive title and 15,000 special allowance, but the people of Lambeth finally drove him out without waiting for the elections later in the summer. That is hardly surprising, but it is rather typical.
	When we consider the problems posed to senior citizens by local councils, our best advice is that they should compare the average council tax levied per dwelling by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative authorities. They will find that the average under Labour is the lowest by a considerable margin.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Deputy Leader of the House mentioned Lambeth council. Its Labour leader sent a leaflet to my door saying that he and his colleagues would be pressing the Chancellor and the Government to reduce pensioners' council tax burden. The Chancellor had the opportunity last week, but refused to do so. What message does the hon. Gentleman have for that Labour councillor?

Nigel Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Labour controlled the council the average council tax was 810, whereas now under the Liberal Democrats it is 1,130. So I advise people to listen to the advice of the Labour leader on the council and vote for him in the council elections.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the serious issue of the availability of Herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that local trusts must not refuse to fund Herceptin for women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer solely on cost. They need to take account of the complete range of factors before they make such a decision while the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is carrying out an appraisal of this unapproved drug using the fast-track process. No one has successfully challenged that approach in court, although an appeal is pending.
	I have a copy of the letter that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), wrote to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. She spelt out clearly to him in paragraph 5 relating to his constituent that
	It is down to individual clinicians to decide whether it is suitable to prescribe a specific drug. The clinician will make this decision after discussions with the patient about the potential risks and taking into account his or her medical history . . . As the Secretary of State re-confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement on 1 March, PCTs should not refuse to fund Herceptin solely on the grounds of its cost. PCTs should not rule out treatments on principle but should consider individual circumstances.

David Heath: I am pleased that we have got away from the pre-local election nonsense and that the Minister has started answering points made in the debate. It is impossible to debate with the hon. Gentleman the details of a constituent's case, but I make three points. First, it was not an early-stage cancer; it was a stage 3 cancer. Secondly, the Minister appears to have sight of a letter that has not yet reached meI am glad to know that it is on its way. Thirdly, the individual's clinician had clearly recommended this course of treatment and it had been turned down by the hospital authorities.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but if he reads the letter, the Minister says in paragraph 2 that stage 3 breast cancer is considered to be early-stage breast cancer. There is no point in bandying the details of an individual case. We all want the person to get the best treatment available. We wish the hon. Gentleman's constituent the best chances of recovery and the best treatment possible. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of a constituent. I merely point out the facts that the House will want to have presented to it.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths: I shall make some progress. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman directly in a minute, I hope.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the position in Iraq. There is much in Iraq that has improved. There has been an underpinning move to democracy, two successful elections and a constitutional referendum. The council of representatives met a fortnight ago. It was elected by 70 per cent. of the electorate. It is good that 4 million more Iraqis have access to potable water than before, and that 9.6 million of them have access to a sewerage system. There were no sewerage or working waste water plants operating before the intervention. Thatwas another legacy of 20 years of Saddam's warmongering, brutal repression, mismanagement and chronic underinvestment. The Secretary of State for Defence does not hesitate to keep the House apprised of developments in Iraq as and when necessary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) made a thoughtful contribution. He stressed the vital need for the closest co-operation between social services departments and PCTs. I welcome the offer that he made to look at Swindon hosting a pilot project. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responds to him on it.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised several issues, including police reorganisation, to which other Members also referred. No one doubts the need for modern, effective police forces to tackle terrorism and crimethe drug dealing and the Mr. Bigs. The current 43-force structure is 30 years old. I reject the claim that there is no need for change, as does the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which states:
	The 43-force structure is no longer fit for purpose.
	Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumbria and Durham have drawn up voluntary merger proposals. In February, Durham's chief constable, Jon Stoddart praised the review, saying:
	From a professional policing point of view there has only ever been one optiona single strategic force.
	Last week, the Home Secretary announced four merger proposals, for the south-east, the eastern region, the east midlands and Yorkshire and Humber. A statutory four-month consultation period is under way and HMIC has identified savings that will, it states, dwarf any initial start-up costs. Of course, we have to ensure that disruption is minimised in carrying out those proposals.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point raised concerns about the Thames Gateway initiative. We recognise the importance of infrastructure for housing and job growth. We support the principles of the sustainable development communities plan, which is why there is 6 billion-worth of Government investment covering the past three years and the next financial year. Although he and other Members attack demands for new homes, his constituents and others want local housing for their sons and daughters. When people's marriages break up, they want to be housed locally near their jobs and families. They can hardly be expected to move hundreds of miles awayfrom Castle Point to Castle Douglas. The Government, the hon. Gentleman, as a local MP, and his local authorities will have to reach an agreement on a sustainable number of homes to meet that need. Otherwise, he will have to face his constituents and tell them why they have to stay in marriages in unsustainable conditions, or why their grown-up children will have to continue to live at home.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) focused on two main issues. He mentioned the lower rates of business tax, which I warmly endorse. The whole House supports the Chancellor's decision to reduce corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent., small business tax from 23 to 19 per cent., and capital gains tax on long-term assets from 40p to 10p in the pound. As my hon. Friend said, he welcomes what has been done for his local businesses, some of which are among the 554,000 new businesses that have been created.
	My hon. Friend stressed the need for energy conservation, a cause that he has championed for much of his working life. He will share my pride that 2 million more homes have been insulated over the past eight years and that 250,000 homes will receive subsidies for insulation within two years. He mentioned his support for the 50 million allocated for microgeneration technologies, which will help 25,000 homes and businesses to generate their own renewable energy, and for the far bigger sum1 billionfor a new energy and environmental research institute.
	The Chancellor's fiscal policies have contributed to all those measures, and include the climate change levy, which I have yet to hear the Opposition endorse. None the less, my hon. Friend presses the Government to do more and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will heed his call.
	It was a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire. Of course, I welcome him to his fairly new elevation to the post of Government Chief Whip[Hon. Members: He will be soon!]Opposition Chief Whip. I thought that, if anyone broke the mould of silence falling on Chief Whips, he would do so, and he has not disappointed me.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the resurfacing of the A50. I am aware, as he said, that he has been in regular contact with the Department for Transport on the issue, and he quoted from his correspondence. For reasons of which I think he is aware, the Department decided not to continue with that programme of replacing lengths of road surface with concrete in advance of normal maintenance requirements, primarily because of the pressure on budgets and for safety reasons. The Department must ensure that there is adequate funding for routine surface renewal schemes. I appreciate the disappointment felt by the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. However, when the A50 requires maintenance and resurfacing, I am assured that a quieter surface will be used as a matter of course.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned his regret at the overturning of a stop order on a local quarry. Again, I will ensure that his observations are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
	On farming payments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear her anger that the payment procedure was not being honoured in the way she wished. When the chief executive reported to her that, on his latest reassessment, he and his agency would be unable to make the payments, she took the decision that that was wholly unacceptable. She took the action that the House would expect her to take. The chief executive was removed, and the leadership has been strengthened to find out whether the payments can be made within an acceptable time. She made her views very clear that the situation was quite unacceptable and recognised the problems. It is to be hoped that those payments will be made as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a thoughtful contribution about providing health care for a population of about 130,000, especially at a time when previously unimaginable advances have been made in medical technology. That involves massive investment in state-of-the-art technology and ever-larger teams of the highest skilled people to carry out the treatments and operations that are now necessary. Speaking from my constituency experience, even with a population of 500,000, problems can be generated in getting the critical mass. In fact, I come from a rural area, so I know better than many that the issue is how we ensure that the critical mass is achieved and the proper resources provided. The hon. Gentleman argued that more money should be put into the issue. It is a common cause, and more money has indeed been devoted to health care, but we now need to work in a bipartisan or tri-partisan way to consider the problems of such areas, including how close to home people's needs must be serviced.
	To echo the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, there is no reason why Members of Parliament should not take up any issue with the chief executive and chairman of their local strategic health authority. In my 19 years as a Member of Parliament and in the seven years before that, when I served on a local health council, I have met chairmen and chief executives of health authorities of every and no political complexion. I have always told them to be plain with me, and still do, and I expect them to focus on the interests of the people they servein the case of chairs, mostly in a voluntary capacity; in the case of chief executives, I hope as consummate professionals. I know that the whole House will urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight's local health officials to be frank and honest with him since he is quite clearly very capable of articulating their concerns at the highest level.
	The hon. Gentleman lamented the loss of 200 staff. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to know the details of that because thousands of nurses and doctors have been provided in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority area in the past nine years and it is important that it balances its budgets as others have done. It is one of the sad facts in relation to the present financial outlook of the minority of health authorities that some 50 per cent. of the overspending is accounted for by only 6 per cent. of them. I urge them to look at health authorities that are able to bring in their services on budget, at a very high level, meeting local demands.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of dentists. Not only have we increased investment in dental schools and dental education by more than 30 per cent., to ensure even better value for money we have increased the number of dental students by 34 per cent. The facts about the number of dentists are also clear. There are 4,600 more dentists now practising in the general dental service and the personal dental service than in 1997. Adult registrations with dentists fell by 1 million between 1992 and 1997, but under this Government they have increased by 1 million. The demand is ever greater and the budget to meet it is great too. Some 17.7 million people are now on the lists of our dentists. It is with some regret that I tell the House that the trend in the number of NHS dentists reducing their commitment to the NHSit started well before this Government came into power, as those dentists did more and more private workhas not been reversed.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome might be interested to know that the money for his local health serviceI think that he mentioned Bathand his local hospital, in terms of the 1.3 million for the purchase of land and for fees, is secure. There is some 12 million for initial funding, as well. I gather that the full business case is already being prepared.
	I join the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in congratulating the women's rugby team on achieving the grand slama terrific achievement. He also raised the issue of Kosovo. As the House will know, I chaired the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal, which was charged by the UN with rebuilding some 8,000 homes in Kosovo. Although I completely endorse what he says about the criminal wilful damage to churches and monasteries, I know that he will join me in condemning the damage that I saw, when I went in shortly after Kosovo was liberated, to the mosques and other buildings, too. I also know that he will want to praise and get an up-to-date report from David Blunt, who is our Foreign Office highest representative there, and his colleagues on the present position. I hope that we can ensure that a copy of those comments is passed to him. We want to ensure that the intervention, which I am convinced saved 250,000 lives, in contrast to the failure to intervene in the previous decade, allows the country to be rebuilt properly.
	The hon. Member also spoke about the North West London strategic health authority. He asked for extra money and raised the plight of his cancer hospital. My colleagues will read his comments with concern and interest.

John Randall: First, I was referring to the deficit of the primary care trust. I was not necessarily talking about extra funding for the cancer facilities, but where they were being placed.

Nigel Griffiths: I think that Hansard may show that the hon. Member mentioned funding before he went on to cancer, but, none the less, his constituents will not blame him for wanting to ensure that the right resources are in his authority. His comments about the possible third runway at Heathrow were balanced.
	Like the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about the alarming increase in the number of identity fraud cases. People appear to be registering using the addresses of innocent constituents so that they can gain driving licences and other documents in such a way that they completely evade the law.

Simon Burns: I was not talking about people registering at other domestic addresses, but hundreds of people registering at a commercial mailing address.

Nigel Griffiths: I was coming on to the point that the hon. Member raised. The hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about a domestic address, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford made us well aware of the problem with 25 Duke street. Both hon. Members made the clearest case for identity cards that the House has heard. It is important that people who are able to take out driving licences and passports in such a way and the criminal gangs that organise the activity are tracked down.

John Randall: I am slightly astounded by the Minister's comment. I do not know whether it is necessary for my 86-year-old mother to have an identity card. I am always open to suggestions, so if he can explain how identity cards would avoid the situation that I described, I will be all ears.

Nigel Griffiths: Because one of the great advantages of an identity card is that it relates solely to an individual, so when an application is madepassports have been mentionedthe individual is tracked, which makes forging any document that might relate to the identity of a person much more difficult. It is because people do not have identity cards at the moment that we have the sort of explosion about which the hon. Member talked. The matter is so serious that he and another colleague raised it in this important debate.

Theresa May: I am having some difficulty understanding the Deputy Leader of the House's explanation of how identity cards will address the problem. The issue is not people turning up with a different identity, but individuals putting down an address that is not theirs when they fill in forms, whether that is the address of another person or a mailing house. How will that problem be solved by identity cards? If an identity card holds such an individual's address, presumably it would just hold the incorrect address.

Nigel Griffiths: No. I would have thought that the right hon. Lady would know the answer if she had sat and listened to the debate, as I did. Any filling in of such forms could be checked on the national identity register. There would not be a question of the original address. People completing forms can apparently make up any name that they choose at the moment, which is why the problem is serious.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford even-handedly praised the 100 million commitment to invest in Broomfield hospital. I know that he will celebrate the 100 or so major hospital projects that are under way or have been completed under the Government. I believe also that as a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, he will know the background of despair and frustration that I am sure that he shared in the 1980s and 1990shis constituents certainly didwhile waiting for another Government to come along to deliver a hospital for which people had been waiting for decades, if not since the last war. It is important that the hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the fact that without commitment to the necessary money, his constituents would have no hope of any hospital in the future. It is important that they have that hope. There is the need for the best funding package for a hospital in the hon. Gentleman's area. I am sure that that is inflamed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents being able to see up to 100 hospitals throughout the country being built, and that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that he and his constituents are at the head of the queue. I would feel the same. I can assure him that when a new hospital opens, as one has on the edge of my constituency, using PFI, that will be widely welcomed and greatly appreciated.
	We have not made up in nine years for 50 years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government and Governments before that. That is not something for which I can apologise, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will regret not voting with the Government to treble the NHS budget.
	I was disappointed when I did not see the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in his usual place at the beginning of the debate. However, I was pleased to see him come along into the Chamber. He is one of the few Members who are difficult to predict when it comes to exactly what issues will be raised. The hon. Gentleman did not disappoint us today. He raised some serious points, and I would like to be the first to praise him for his outspoken support for the release from imprisonment of one of his constituents and two others. I know that he has praised the Government, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for the representations that they have made consistently about the conditions in which his constituent was held and about the treatment that he and the others received.
	I understand that they were convicted of the offence of supporting a banned organisation, the Islamic Liberation party. They served three quarters of their sentence and applied for remission, which I know the hon. Gentleman strongly supported, as I understand did our Government. That remission was granted. When they returned, special branch wanted to interview them at the earliest opportunity, because of conditions that I think are explicable. I regret if that caused further distress to their relatives. I hope that they have got over that and acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's constituent is now home in the warm embrace of his family.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views on the future of embassies will be noted.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the grant settlement, as did others. Given the support for councils under this Government, compared with anything that was given under the previous Government, I take criticism ill on this subject. I am not qualified, as the hon. Gentleman is, to comment on badgers. I know that the relevant MinisterI am not sure which one it iswith responsibilities for urban badgers as against rural badgers will doubtless want to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman made a number of observations about a private airline and where it has gone. More seriously for his constituents, he made observations about cancer services in his area, all of which have been noted.
	The shadow Leader of the House is a model of ingratitude. If we consider what has been delivered in her constituency by the Government in terms of funding, I am surprised that she could not bring herself to say Thank you for the 1,160 extra per pupil. I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the Windsor and Maidenhead local education authority had an allocation of 4.4 million this year. That compares to 2.3 million, which was inherited, to the devolved schools' budget. In her constituency the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30 is now 32. It used to be 738. She had no praise for the 120 more teachers.
	On crime, the right hon. Lady expressed no thanks to the Government for 4,114 more police officers in the Thames Valley area serving her constituents and others. That is an increase on last year, and 4,000 more than when she was in government.

Theresa May: I was not.

Nigel Griffiths: On health, the right hon. Lady failed to praise the Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead PCT, which now has 2,760 more nurses, over 1,200 more doctors and over 350 more consultants. She failed to praise us for the work that we have done with local and other businesses in her area, which has resulted in youth unemployment falling by 22 per cent. She failed to apologise for not supporting the new deal, which has been instrumental in helping her constituents.
	A number of great achievements have been made in the past nine years. I am glad that Members have given me a chance to showcase some of them. I am sorry that those have been only grudgingly received, and not acknowledged at all by some hon. Members.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Deputy Leader of the House was doing a reasonable job, but he spoiled it towards the end. If the Government have such a wonderful proud record, why are there not a huge number of Members on the Labour Benches to sing their praises?

Nigel Griffiths: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman had to use his pager to rope in some of his colleagues late in the day. I thought that I was being generous to one of them by noting that he was not in his placethe rather charitable convention in the House. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, were not in at the beginning of the debate or not in for the whole debate.

Simon Burns: The reason that I was not present at the beginning, about which I notified the Speaker's office, was to help the Government to complete the Committee stage of a Bill. We sat 40 minutes late.

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. What it tells the House and people who care to read Hansard is that there are many serious reasons why Members are not in the Chamber. It is the Opposition who chose to raise the matter and dwell on it, to their own embarrassment. I am sure colleagues on the Government side have equally valid reasons.
	I end, Madam Deputy Speaker, by thanking you for the role that you have played in this debate and in the absence of the Speaker. We wish the Speaker a recovery to full health, and I wish every Member of the House a peaceful and restful Easter.

Kevin Brennan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS
	  
	Children's Hospices

Bob Spink: I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all colleagues, officers and staff of the Palace of Westminster a happy Easter, and thank you and everyone else for what you do. Today I especially thank the excellent and honourable team of Doorkeepers who are waiting at the Bar, ready to carry into the Chamber some 250,000 signatures calling for fair play on children's hospice funding.
	I have more than 12,000 signatures. These were organised by The Sun under its caring and excellent journalist, Dave Masters, and by Somerfield supermarkets' wonderful Butterfly campaign. I congratulate them. They are heroes. The campaign does not end here. There are plans for the whole year, starting with No. 10 Downing street in May.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of UK residents,
	Declares that there is a scandalous lack of funding for children's hospices which care for the most poorly kids, which means these are forced to rely on charitable donations.
	The Petitioners therefore implore the House of Commons to call upon the Government to urgently provide short term funds to children's hospices to cover the loss of lottery funds and to improve the longer term funding arrangements for children's hospices and further urges the Government to do all within its power to ensure that children's hospices are, at the very least, funded at the thirty per cent. level awarded to adult hospices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Lip Reading Services

Bob Spink: Mrs. Irene Haylock of Benfleet hard of hearing club is chairman of the Essex league of the hard of hearing. Deafness and hearing loss is seriously undervalued as a disability in some areas of society. Deaf people feel that others think that they are just stupid, and they are often excluded in social environments. I am grateful to all those who supported the petition and who care about that disability, including, of course, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that deafness and difficulty of hearing are serious and very debilitating conditions and is undervalued as a disability in many ways therefore the petitioners believe that lip reading is a skill for life and should be provided free of charge to those who need it and are concerned that there is effectively postcode discrimination on the provision of this essential skill, with, for instance, fees in Castle Point being increased from 5 to 90 and that this discriminates against the poor and vulnerable and will prevent people achieving healthy and active life styles and will cost the state more in the longer term.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to ensure there is universal free provision of lip reading services for deaf people and the hard of hearing.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Prevention of Antisocial Behaviour

Bob Spink: Many good people in the neighbourhood of King George playing field, Canvey Island, are deeply concerned about antisocial behaviour by some youths on the island. Castle Point has a large number of youths, the vast majority of whom are great, caring, honourable, hard-working kids with bright futures, but the situation is spoiled by just a few yobs, who seem to get all the publicity. I am grateful to Inspector Kevin Diable-White of the local police, who is doing all that he can to tackle that problem along with Castle Point borough council and residents.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that the petitioners are deeply concerned about yob behaviour which is causing serious problems for local communities and particularly the elderly with hordes of noisy young people creating more than a nuisance of themselves, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights and that individuals have attempted to bring this to the attention of the council and police which jointly have the responsibility to stop it, but without success, therefore we have decided to get together and hope that this community wide appeal to the authorities will bring results.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon Castle Point Borough Council and the police to take tough action to ensure that yob behaviour which is destroying quality of life is addressed in a sustainable manner.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

DNA DATABASE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Kevin Brennan.]

Adam Holloway: I am delighted to see that hon. Members on both sides of the House are busily engaged in other important matters this afternoon.
	The national deoxyribonucleic acid databasethe national DNA databasehas the potential to transform our country into a low-crime society, but it also has the potential to make us feel that we are living in the Big Brother house. There are currently about 3 million people on the database, and that number includes what has been described as
	virtually the entire criminally active population.
	By 2008, it is predicted to include 4.2 million people, and presumably most of those new additions will be people who are not currently criminally active. Since last year, well over 100,000 law-abiding people have been added, even though they have not been charged with any crime. The number continues to increase each year.
	The police currently have the authority to take DNA from any person who is arrested and detained for a recordable offence, including road traffic offences. Samples can be taken by force if necessary, but are generally taken using a swab from the mouth. Those are known as criminal justice samples, but they are not taken only from criminals. There are two other types of sample: those recovered by the police from the scene of a crime; and those taken from volunteers. For example, 4,000 people in Croydon are being tested to eliminate people from the investigation into the murder of Sally Anne Bowman.
	The UK database holds the largest amount of data in absolute numerical terms and in percentage of population terms of any other country in the world. It currently stands at 5.2 per cent. of the population; in the United States, it is 0.5 per cent. of the population. To put this in some context, in addition to the profiles of the 3 million or so individuals, there are nearly 300,000 crime scene profiles on the database relating to a variety of crimes such as burglary, theft and fraud. It also contains a significant number of rapists, murderers and kidnappers.
	Recent Home Office figures show that where there is DNA at a crime scene, the overall detection rates shoot up: in domestic burglary, from 16 per cent. to 41 per cent.; in theft from a vehicle, from 8 per cent. to 63 per cent.; and in criminal damage, from 14 to 51 per cent. That shows that the average detection rate across all crimes rises from 26 per cent. to 40 per cent. for crimes where a DNA profile has been obtained. In a typical month, that equates to around 15 murders, 45 rapes or sexual offences, and 2,500 motor vehicle, property and drug crimes.
	My friend, Commander Dave Johnston, head of homicide at New Scotland Yard, cites the example of a gerontophilesomebody who rapes elderly peoplewho has for some time been at large in south London. He has raped about 40 women and killed two of them through rupture injuries. The commander says: We've got buckets of this man's DNAwe just don't have anything to compare it with. He points out that this is just one of the 300,000 outstanding crimes where the offender is known, but only by the DNA that they have left behind. These people cannot be matched to a named person because they are not on the database.
	People in my constituency suffer from far too high levels of crime associated with vastly inadequate routine police resources, despite the overall increase in police numbers in recent years. Mercifully, very serious crime is rare, but when it happens, Kent police, under chief constable Mike Fuller, have an excellent record; we need only look at their performance over the 53 million cash heist that took place a month or so ago.
	But if we are to reduce crime and make our community safer, we must remove or control those who pose a risk to our well-being and safety. Many of the outstanding DNA samples held by the Forensic Science Service relate to repeat offenders, particularly in cases of rape and serious sexual assault. Many of those as yet unidentified are continuing to offend. Furthermore, the power to take DNA from people after death would be useful in cases of a sexual nature. It would mean that undetected crimes did not remain outstanding if it could be established that the perpetrator had died.
	There may be a strong argument for taking DNA from dead people to help manage the current database. At the very least, the police could tell the victim, who might still be living in fear, Sorry, we didn't get them, but they died. That might be helpful for victims dealing with the effects of such awful crime.
	The UK police currently obtain DNA from only 1 per cent. of crimes. Research shows that, with proper investment, that could be increased to more than 54 per cent.in other words, those crimes where DNA might reasonably be expected to be found. That would significantly increase the number of criminals brought to justice. Of course, that would be wasted if the number of people on the database did not increase.
	The science of DNA does not only convict the guilty. It also helps the innocent who may otherwise face trial because of compelling circumstantial evidence or witness statements. There may be cases where a prosecution would have been based on that sort of evidence but for the presence of DNA, which led to another person being convicted or the original suspect being eliminated.
	Apparently, in five years, we are likely to be able reliably to tell the skin complexion, height, birthplace and details of any deformity or significant impairment of an individual through DNA. It is possible to grow a sample from the merest touch against a surface or a body using a system called low copy numberLCN. It can currently be used to determine an individual's physical characteristics including, gender, ethnic background, eye colour and hair colour. Many other characteristics are being worked on as the understanding of DNA develops. Recent changes to the law in California are likely to lead to another technological surge as private sector companies seek the massive profits that will be available.
	The DNA of any individual comes 50:50 from mother and father. By using that knowledge, family connections can be made. Earlier, I mentioned the gerontophile. The police know, quite precisely, where his family comes from. The closer the family member, the closer the link on the DNA.
	DNA can be obtained from almost any cell in the body but is normally taken from testing blood, saliva or semen. In cases of a badly deteriorated corpse, it can also be taken from bones or teeth. One should bear in mind that around 50,000 people remain on the missing list in this country alone.
	The current methods are called SGM plussingle generation multiplex pluswhich provide 10 different markers for identification. Extrapolated out, they give a statistical likelihood of two similar DNA samples being one in 1 billion.
	The countryand my constituents who travel into London day after dayface another gigantic threat from terrorism. Eye-popping work is being done using DNA, as the Under-Secretary knows. Of the four July suicide bombers, we held DNA on only one. If we had had more, the police and national intelligence agencies could have established who they were far more quickly and linked them to other people, other addresses and possibly other scenes.
	That is rather a long-winded way of saying that some amazing benefits have come out of the UK's advanced and world-leading position in DNA databasing.
	The trouble is that I, and many other people, feel uneasy about the state holding information on uswhether about our financial position, our personal lives, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) mentioned an hour or so ago, through council tax inspectors. Most of all, many of us feel uneasy at the thought that the state might have part of our physical being by holding our DNA. When I leave here this evening, I could be arrested for a traffic offence. I might not subsequently be convicted, but in five days' time, my DNA could be on the database for all time.
	If we are to make the best use of this technology, we must have a proper debate about it. At present, it feels as though we are moving towards a national database by stealth. Perhaps the benefits would be so huge in transforming the crime profile of this country that the public could be swayed in favour of the move. The bottom line should be that, if innocent people's DNA is going to be held on the database, we should have a rational debate and try to bring this about in an open and organised fashion, and not in a haphazard manner, however well intentioned and successful the Government have been in this area.
	If the Government want a database that contains the code for everyone, and not just for existing criminals, they should be honest about that. They are getting more and more people, many of them innocent, on to the database, and the challenge for them and the very senior police officers who are calling for a national compulsory database is to reassure people and to win the argument by demonstrating the extraordinary potential benefits to people like me, my constituents, and the civil liberties groups. At present, the bit-by-bit approach is doing nothing to ameliorate people's fears.

Andy Burnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on securing this debate. Normally, it would be considered a difficult one for someone in my position to get the Adjournment debate just before the Easter recess, but I am actually pleased to be here, because this is an important subject. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it, and it is right that we are here to discuss it and its implications.
	This debate provides a useful opportunity to discuss the contribution that the database makes to the work of the police and the wider criminal justice system, and I want to begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put forward his remarks today. He has balanced them by recognising what he called the amazing benefits that the database has brought, and it is important that the debate should be seen in the context of those benefits, although of course there is a balance to be struck. He has also aired some of the concerns about the retention on the database of the DNA profiles of people who have been arrested but not convicted of an offence, and it is right that we are here to debate those important issues.

Bob Spink: Has the Minister considered the difficult and sensitive issue of the benefits and disbenefits of taking DNA samples from anyone who seeks to come to live in this country from abroad?

Andy Burnham: That question relates to the possible expansion of the database, which I will deal with more fully in a moment. However, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question about people coming to this country is no. The Government's position is that we are moving towards a system of external identifiers, commonly known as biometrics. These are being progressively introduced into the British visathat process is under way as we speakand the hon. Gentleman will also know that many countries are introducing biometrics into their passports. They are external identifiers, and there are no plans to go further and to take DNA from people wishing to travel here.

Bob Spink: The Minister might not be aware that the Science and Technology Committee has looked at biometrics, including iris and facial recognition and fingerprints, and found no evidence from any large-scale project that using multiple biometrics in the way that the Government propose would work technologically. The Government are simply making an assumption that they would work, but there is no evidence of that. In the absence of a working biometrics system, would the Minister consider the use of DNA?

Andy Burnham: No, I would not. I do not believe that people would accept that. Even for someone often accused, as I am, of not having regard for such matters, it would raise substantial civil liberties implications. On that basis, I would rule it out categorically. As to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises about the effectiveness of biometrics, I do not accept that that is the case. I do not know whether he has travelled to the United States recently, but it has a large-scale immigration system that uses biometric information extremely successfully. His assertion that there is no evidence of external biometrics providing a higher standard of identification in travel documents is therefore wrong.
	Like the hon. Member for Gravesham, I recognise that the national DNA database is an extremely powerful tool. It therefore follows that it needs to be used carefully and proportionately, with the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I am pleased that he has secured this debate and that we are here today. I want to make a commitment to him and the House that that scrutiny will continue, and it is important that it does. He is right to say that it is important to explain the benefits of the national DNA database so that we can continue to build a consensus in support of it. It is right that the debate should be taken forward with openness, not secrecy. In that way, we will maintain and secure confidence.
	As the hon. Member for Gravesham rightly says, the database is achieving some extraordinary public benefits by solving crime, especially some appalling crimes that have remained unsolved for many years. It rightly commands solid and sound public support, and in my view the majority of our constituents support it and want it used to the fullest possible extent. I want to give some examples of that success. It is important to conduct the debate, and explain the benefits, without resorting to language likely to raise fear or alarm unnecessarily among the public. In certain quarters, the database is viewed as something necessarily to be feared. I want to deal with that directly.
	There is no material disadvantage or cost to the individual simply from being on the national DNA databaseit is not a criminal record. A cost arises only if a further crime is committed. Even before the advent of DNA technologies, the police always retained information relevant to an investigation that they had carried out, even if that investigation did not subsequently proceed to charge or trial. Those decisions have always properly been at the discretion of the police and, ultimately, of the chief constable of a force. I would not want that to change. It is right, however, that processes are put in place to ensure that people can question the legitimacy of their data being held on the DNA database. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently been working on guidelines for those procedures.
	We can also consider other safeguards, such as the proviso that DNA is only taken when an individual is arrested in connection with a recordable offence. The hon. Member for Gravesham suggested a couple of times, although I do not think that he sought to be misleading, that someone arrested for a road traffic offence could have their DNA taken. That would only occur in the case of a more serious road traffic offence. It would not happen, for example, if someone had not been wearing their seatbelt, but in cases of serious offences such as failing to provide a specimen of breath when requested or tampering with a vehicle. It is important to put that on the record.
	A further safeguard is that access to the database is strictly limited. Only a small number of peopleless than 30have direct access to the database. People cannot access the database from police stations all over the country. That is an important safeguard, which people want to hear about. The individuals who can access the database are highly vetted and security-cleared. The statutory purposes of the database are also clearly defined: those relating to the detection and prevention of crime, with the extension to the identification of dead bodies, following the awful events of the tsunami.
	Let me give some background to the debate. The DNA database has been in existence for 10 years. It was begun under the Conservative party, and was set up as a police intelligence database to hold DNA profiles from persons charged with, reported for or convicted of a recordable offence. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of DNA profiles from sampled individuals grew slowly from zero to approximately 750,000. In the late 1990s there were around 21,000 DNA matches per year, providing the police with leads on the possible identity of offenders.
	It was clear that DNA was having an impact on serious crime, and on high-volume crimes such as burglary and vehicle crime. That illustrated the potential value of the database. In 1999, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced plans to increase the use of DNA technology through the setting up of the DNA expansion programme, and significant investmentsome 300 millionwas allocated to the programme. Its aims were to expand the database to hold profiles of all active criminalsthe hon. Gentleman mentioned thatand to take DNA materials from more crime scenes and load them on the database. The database holds both types of sample. We believe that the programme has achieved its aims, and that is borne out by the recent progress report on it.
	It is impossible to be precise, but we believe that the database now covers a large proportion of the criminally active population. At the end of February 2006, it held more than 3.5 million profiles from sampled individuals. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 2.25 million persons were sampled and their profiles were added to the database. That is treble the number of profiles loaded in the previous five years, between 1995 and 2000.
	The database is a key police intelligence tool, helping to identify offenders more quickly, eliminate suspected offenders earlier in investigations, make earlier arrests and secure more convictions. Those are very important public policy objectives, of which I am sure Members in all parts of the House approve. The database provides criminal leads for police investigations.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the forecast growth of the database. Forecasts indicate that it is likely to expand to 4.25 million profiles by 200708 as a result of the sampling of arrested persons and newcomers to crime. It is not the case that anyone added to it is innocent. The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that, but it was possible to interpret what he said in that way. There are currently more than 6.2 million records on the national fingerprint database. That is to be expected, as the national fingerprint collection has existed for far longersince the first half of the last century.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of a universal DNA database, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) strayed into the same territory, wondering whether DNA should be collected more generally. It remains our view that the national DNA database is an intelligence database for police service use, to assist in the fight against crime. That is clearly laid out in the statutory purpose of the database. The Government have no plansI repeat, no plansto introduce a universal compulsory, or voluntary, national DNA database, or to seek to obtain DNA samples from the entire population. Nor is it our intention to build the database by stealth. It is our intention simply that the samples will continue to match arrests made and crimes committed.
	We believe that seeking to obtain DNA samples from the entire population would raise significant practical and ethical issues, and there would need to be a national debate on it. I do not think that the country is ready to hold that debate, as may be shown by our long debates on identity cards. I do not believe that we have reached the point at which people would accept such a step. I do believe, however, that we have reached the point at which people accept the existence of the national DNA database for the policing and crime detection purposes that I have describedas long as there is proper scrutiny and debate, and testing of issues around the edges of the debate, notably the retention of samples from arrestees.
	Following an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police have been able to retain DNA and fingerprints taken from persons who have been charged with, but not convicted of, recordable offences, and detained in police stations. DNA samples retained under PACE may be used only for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence, the conduct of a prosecution or, since April 2005, the identification of a deceased person.
	The Government firmly believe that the 2001 amendment is both proportionate and justified in the interests of preventing and detecting crime. That view was supported by a Judicial Committee of the other place in the case of R v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire in July 2004. The case was a rape case, in which DNA evidence had been ruled inadmissible, even though it established the identity of one of those involved. Following that case, the House debated fully the issue of whether the rule needed to be changed, and whether the police required greater flexibility to retain DNA samples.
	Since May 2001, some 200,000 DNA samples have been retained that would previously have had to be destroyed. From those, approximately 8,500 profiles of individuals have been linked with crime scene stains, involving nearly 14,000 offences. Those offences include 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 sexual offences and 119 aggravated burglaries. I urge those who campaign against the DNA database to reflect on those figures, which are evidence of substantial public benefit for the victims and their families of the policy that was introduced on the retention of DNA samples.
	In 2003, following representations from the police service, new powers were introduced enabling the police to take DNA and fingerprints from persons who have been arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station. The great majority of profiles on the database are from individuals who have been either convicted of or charged with an offence. As at early December 2005, only around 125,000 profiles related to persons who had been arrested but no further action had been taken in the case.
	It is a fact that the police arrest more people than they charge, and we do of course accept that broadening police powers in that way has civil liberties implications. The Government appreciate that some people may be concerned about building a larger DNA database, particularly where it relates to arrested people who have not been proceeded against for an offence. Although we recognise all those concerns, we have nevertheless concluded that any intrusion on personal liberty is both necessary and proportionate to the benefits for victims of crime and society generally in terms of detecting crime and protecting the public against criminals.
	Those benefits are evidenced by the fact that since April 2004, sampling persons who have been arrested but not proceeded against has yielded a match with a crime scene stain in more than 3,000 offences, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders, 90 rapes and 1,136 burglary offences. Those are links that might never have been made had the police not been given powers to take and retain DNA samples on arrest.
	Questions have been raised about the under-18s and the database. Around 740,000 of the profiles on the database relate to young persons who were under 18 at the time the sample was taken. Many of those persons are now over 18. As at 13 December 2005, there were around 377,000 under-18s on the database. Young persons under the age of 18 who have their DNA on the database have been portrayed in some sections of the media as innocent children. We need to recognise that, sadly, that is not always the case. Under-18s make up approximately 23 per cent. of all arrests, and thus a comparable proportion of young persons' profiles on the database should not be unexpected. Home Office statistics published in 2003 indicate that the peak rate of offending is among young persons.
	Many offences including burglaries, robberies, criminal damage and drugs offences are committed by under-18s, causing great distress to their victims. Some young people go on to commit very serious offences. For example, a case was reported last week of a 14-year-old who had raped four children of primary school age. It is crucial that the police have access to DNA intelligence to ensure that young people who commit such crimes are detected as soon as possible, for the sake of their victims and in order to prevent any further such crimes.
	That said, there will inevitably be some instances where entirely innocent young people are arrested and sampled in a case of mistaken identity, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. In such cases, chief officers have the operational discretion to remove the DNA profile from the database and to destroy the DNA sample. Recent guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers has laid down how the process can be pursued. Members acting on their constituents' behalf can of course follow that process, details of which have been placed in the Library of the House.
	Let me give some examples of the benefits of a national DNA database. Almost every week the media report on the outcome of criminal cases in which DNA-matched intelligence has been used and relied on. On average, the database provides police with 3,000 intelligence matches a month, thereby enhancing their capability to detect crime; indeed, some 40,000 such crimes were detected in 200405. The hon. Gentleman gave figures for cases in his own region during Operation Advance 1, which, as he may know, was a nationwide review of cold cases. For example, in Tunbridge Wells in 1989, an 18-year-old woman was threatened with a shotgun and raped, and only when the offender was arrested in 2004when Kent police began reviewing undetected serious crimes using modern DNA techniquesdid he eventually plead guilty to rape and false imprisonment. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Other cases in the hon. Gentleman's region include the sentencing to life of a man found guilty of raping two students at knifepoint, 16 years after those offences were committed.
	A powerful feature of the database is that if someone who committed a serious offence many years ago commits a more trivial one some years later, that requires the taking of a DNA sample and the link between the two offences is triggered. The ability to link a range of criminal behaviour back to serious crimes is very important, and the two cases from the hon. Gentleman's region that I mentioned are powerful examples of how the database can uncover such links. Members may have read this week of Wearside Jack, the hoaxer who disrupted the hunt for the Yorkshire ripper. The man in question, who has since been arrested and convicted, had a sample taken in 2001 when he was arrested and cautioned for being drunk and disorderly. A cold case review in 2005 of the original hoax case retrieved DNA from the seal on one of the envelopes used to send the hoax letters. That DNA matched the later sample.
	Amazing stories are emerging in our press almost weekly, and when people read them they will immediately appreciate the power and benefit of the national DNA database. The cases are, at times, incredibly moving, and the victims are given a chance to regain their lives as they perhaps thought that they never would. Following a successful prosecution in a serious case, a senior investigating officer involved in the cold case review said the following:
	We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the databasehe didn't even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either.
	As Members will appreciate, the ability to make connections between cases in various parts of the country is a very powerful policing tool.
	I could regale hon. Members with plenty more statistics and stories, but I do not want to keep them from leaving for their Easter break. However, I believe that the database is an intriguing subject, and that the House should take a close interest in it. I am ready to help it to do so, as I want the debate to be open and conducted in a spirit of explanation rather than the sort of scaremongering that would be a disservice to the public. The hon. Member for Gravesham has certainly shown the proper spirit in his approach to this debate.
	I assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to build a database by stealth, or to amass more and more information for some ulterior purpose. We want that information to help the policewhom we pay to protect usto do their job better. In that way, victims will get more justice, and the population as a whole will feel more secure. Apart from aiding the identification of deceased bodiesI am sure that no hon. Members will disagree with that use of the informationthat is the only reason for compiling the DNA database.
	The statutory purposes behind the database mean that people can be confident that it is being taken forward in the right way. From his remarks, I took it that the hon. Member for Gravesham supported the principles underlying the database's use, but that he wanted confirmation of its openness and accountability. That is a perfectly legitimate request, and I am happy to have been able to respond. I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and in wishing the House a happy Easter break, I also hope that more parliamentary time can be given to this important matter in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock.